[SSSD] [PATCH] PAM: Make p11_child timeout configurable

Michal Židek mzidek at redhat.com
Wed Sep 16 11:41:57 UTC 2015


On 09/14/2015 05:49 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 03:38:32PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> patch for ticket https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2773
>> is attached.
>>
>> Michal
>
>>  From 96215f618f61b8b2b303f0398a41af94292ccf57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <mzidek at redhat.com>
>> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:19:53 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] PAM: Make p11_child timeout configurable
>>
>> Ticket:
>> https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2773
>> ---
>>   Makefile.am                          |  2 +-
>>   src/confdb/confdb.h                  |  1 +
>>   src/config/SSSDConfig/__init__.py.in |  1 +
>>   src/man/sssd.conf.5.xml              | 12 ++++++++++++
>>   src/responder/pam/pamsrv_cmd.c       | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Please also add the new parameter to src/config/etc/sssd.api.conf.
>
> One style-question inline (but really, more of a question..)
>
>>   static errno_t
>> @@ -1126,8 +1125,21 @@ static int pam_forwarder(struct cli_ctx *cctx, int pam_cmd)
>>       }
>>
>>       if (may_do_cert_auth(pctx, pd)) {
>> +        int p11_child_timeout;
>
> I wonder if the block starts getting so big that it makes sense to add
> variables to its scope..isn't it better to just split the block into tis
> own function?
>
> Especially if the block is unit-tested?

Yes, the block grew a little too much with the added
option. See the new version.

Michal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-PAM-Make-p11_child-timeout-configurable.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 6665 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20150916/2233bd86/attachment.bin>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list