[SSSD] [PATCH] sss_client: Return a different error when sssd is not running

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Thu Nov 13 09:44:45 UTC 2014


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 08:04:46PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:36:00 +0100
> Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On (12/11/14 10:00), Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >I would create a helper function to be called on return that
> > >transforms the error accordingly. This will allow to write the code
> > >_and_ the comment once.
> > >
> > In this case, Stephan's patch is better
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=788567
> 
> Yes, this is a valid alternative.
> 
> > >The comment should be changed to something like this in either case:
> > >/* When sssd is stopped return a safe error code as if sss was not
> > >configured at all in nsswitch. This prevents bogus errors from
> > >causing issues in applications, before sssd starts or if it fails to
> > >respond. */
> > >
> > >No need to mention that sss is by default in nsswitch, as it is not
> > >in all distributions and it really is inconsequential, the same
> > >behaviour change hleps when sss is not the default but is has been
> > >manually added and sssd is stopped or not started yet (for example
> > >during boot).
> > nss-pam-ldapd has the same behaviour in the same situation.
> > Will we patch it as well? It's very likely we won't.
> 
> Sorry, I do not see how that matters :)
> 
> > The biggest problem is that sss is by default in nsswitch on
> > fedora/rhel>=7 due to glibc caching and problem with GNOME,
> > a) sssd-client is installed by default on this platforms.
> > b) sssd need't be configured by default and in most cases won't be
> >     => sssd cannot run
> > c) glibc developers don't want to adjust the error return code in
> > glibc
> > 
> > As a result of this, we need to patch sssd.
> > I would say we should patch sssd just in downstream and
> > Stephan's patch works well. I tested it.
> 
> Ok, then let's go with Stephen's patch.
> 
> Simo.
> 

I don't personally mind whether we use Lukas' or Stephen's patch but I
would /strongly/ prefer the patch to be pushed upstream.

Non-upstream patches should be considered valid only as a temporary
workarounds..



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list