On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:17:24PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 03:09 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:49 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>On 09/04/2013 09:12 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:06 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 15:25 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>>>>On 09/03/2013 01:27 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>>>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>while looking at expand_ccname_template() becasue of shadowing rewind()
> >>>>>>>I realized that there a some issues with some of the new krb5.conf
> >>>>>>>templates. This patch fixes them and adds some tests to avoid similar
> >>>>>>>issues in the future.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>There is one change in behaviour. If the name in the %{} braces does
> >>>>>>>not
> >>>>>>>match any of the known krb5.conf templates for UNIX the new code
> >>>>>>>returns
> >>>>>>>an error while the old just returned something, which in most case will
> >>>>>>>not be the original input. Please tell me if you prefer the original
> >>>>>>>input in this case so that I can change the patch accordingly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I think we should expand the parameters we can, i.e. uid and euid and
> >>>>>>leave everything else intact (i.e. don't even check ${LIBDIR} etc.). Ad
> >>>>>>absurdum: for what we know, users can ran custom build that supports
> >>>>>>other variables...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>True, I was looking at this code yesterday again as I am hadling 2071
> >>>>>and I was thinking the same, we should just ignore and leave unchanged
> >>>>>%{xyz} patterns we do not understand, so that if libkrb5 adds something
> >>>>>the admin can use we do not have to explicitly support it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>But if you don't agree, I'll ack this patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, let's nack, and if you all do not mind I can come up with an
> >>>>>alternative patch that does what I describe above.
> >>>>
> >>>>Whatever you prefer, but I can do the needed changes as well. If you do
> >>>>them, please do not forget to add tests for the cases which are
> >>>>currently not covered.
> >>>
> >>>I opened bug #2076 to track this issue and attached find a different
> >>>approach with testes against current master.
> >>>
> >>>Simo.
> >>
> >>Nack.
> >>
> >>krb5_utils-tests.c: In function ‘test_krb5_style_expansion’:
> >>krb5_utils-tests.c:679:9: error: unused variable ‘ret’
> >>
> >>It looks good otherwise.
> >>Can we also include Sumit's tests?
> >
> >Sumit's tests consider any 'unknown' expansion variable as invalid, so
> >they would fail.
> >
> >Attached new version w/o ret and rebased on current master.
> >
> >Simo.
>
> OK then. Ack.
Pushed to master and sssd-1-10
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
