Re: [SSSD] [PATCHES] Support for ghost users

2012-04-25 Thread Jan Zelený
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 15:41 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:22 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > I'm sending a patch set that removes support for fake user entries > > > > > and add > > > > > > > > > ghost attribute instead

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] execv and exec_child don't return

2012-04-25 Thread Jakub Hrozek
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:07:29PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:28:20PM +0200, Stef Walter wrote: > > On 04/24/2012 12:42 PM, Sumit Bose wrote: > > > Chances are that some static code analysis tools or -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > > > might complain about an unchecked return value

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] execv and exec_child don't return

2012-04-25 Thread Sumit Bose
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:28:20PM +0200, Stef Walter wrote: > On 04/24/2012 12:42 PM, Sumit Bose wrote: > > Chances are that some static code analysis tools or -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > > might complain about an unchecked return value. Currently we mostly try > > to make those tools happy, even if the

Re: [SSSD] [PATCHES] Support for ghost users

2012-04-25 Thread Simo Sorce
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 15:41 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:22 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm sending a patch set that removes support for fake user entries and > > > > add > > > > > > > ghost attribute instead: > > > Jan, cou

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] execv and exec_child don't return

2012-04-25 Thread Stef Walter
On 04/24/2012 12:35 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:07:09PM +0200, Stef Walter wrote: >> execv, excvp and exec_child never return 0 or EOK. So we don't need to >> handle that case. Patch clears out a bit of code. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stef > > Looks good, can you just change the

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] execv and exec_child don't return

2012-04-25 Thread Stef Walter
On 04/24/2012 12:42 PM, Sumit Bose wrote: > Chances are that some static code analysis tools or -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > might complain about an unchecked return value. Currently we mostly try > to make those tools happy, even if the code becomes a bit redundant. > > Have you checked if -D_FORTIFY_SO

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSH: Add dp_get_host_send to common responder code

2012-04-25 Thread Jakub Hrozek
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > [PATCH] Rename split_service_name_filter > The function was used outside services code which was confusing due to > its name. This patch renames it to sound more netrual. > > [PATCH] SSH: Add dp_get_host_send to common responder code