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

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Tue Nov 18 11:22:00 UTC 2014


On (13/11/14 10:08), Simo Sorce wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:44:45 +0100
>Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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..
>
>I was not aware the patch was not proposed for upstream. I strongly
>disagree on this kind of patches being platform specific too.
>
New version of patch is attached.

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list