On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:19:25PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (27/10/15 22:35), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (27/10/15 17:57), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:06:36PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>> > On (21/10/15 09:20), Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>> > >On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:15:06PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>> > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:17:49PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> >>> > >> > Hi Jakub,
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > On 10/19/2015 09:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>> > >> > >I'm working on pam_sss.so tests[1] and I ran into a problem that
> >>> > >> > >I don't
> >>> > >> > >know how to solve best.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >tl;dr, I would like to set different environment variables for
> >>> > >> > >different
> >>> > >> > >tests in order to set up cwrap libraries differently per-test.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >I can't use setenv() in the test itself, because that's too late,
> >>> > >> > >I need
> >>> > >> > >the variables to be set when __attribute__(constructor) is run,
> >>> > >> > >so normally
> >>> > >> > >at program startup, when the libraries are loaded.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >With cmake it's easy, use set(TEST_ENVIRONMENT). But with
> >>> > >> > >autotools, I
> >>> > >> > >only found two ways:
> >>> > >> > > - TESTS_ENVIRONMENT - this is fine, but it's per
> >>> > >> > > Makefile.am. So I
> >>> > >> > > would have to split the tests more, into pam_wrapper tests
> >>> > >> > > that also
> >>> > >> > > require uid_wrapper, tests that only require pam_wrapper,
> >>> > >> > > ...
> >>> > >> > > - LOG_COMPILER - this allows to run a wrapper script before
> >>> > >> > > a test
> >>> > >> > > that receives the test name as argv. So this is pretty
> >>> > >> > > much what I
> >>> > >> > > want except this is a feature new to automake 1.12, which
> >>> > >> > > would
> >>> > >> > > rule out both RHEL-6 and Ubuntu Trusty (which is used by
> >>> > >> > > Travis)
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >So I'm really leaning towards creating a
> >>> > >> > >src/tests/cwrap/pwrap/Makefile.am
> >>> > >> > >and src/tests/cwrap/pwrap_root/Makefile.am. The downside of
> >>> > >> > >multiple
> >>> > >> > >Makefile.am files is that there is some code duplication and the
> >>> > >> > >build
> >>> > >> > >takes longer. But I still think there is enough interest (from us
> >>> > >> > >and from
> >>> > >> > >our users) to support git master on old platforms. I can file a
> >>> > >> > >ticket to
> >>> > >> > >remove this and use LOG_COMPILER when we drop support for RHEL-6
> >>> > >> > >and old
> >>> > >> > >Ubuntu versions...
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >If you disagree, please reply, otherwise I'm going to send a
> >>> > >> > >patch with
> >>> > >> > >per-test Makefile...
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Ah, so these are unit tests, not integration tests?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I'm working on both, actually. The first part is more or less an
> >>> > >> isolated unit test of all the options that pam_sss supports. The
> >>> > >> reason
> >>> > >> is that some options (2FA, smart cards, ...) are not really easily
> >>> > >> testable without a mock back end, at the moment we only have
> >>> > >> openldap in
> >>> > >> the integration tests.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> The next step I will start right after I finish this part is
> >>> > >> integration
> >>> > >> tests that will exercise LDAP authentication, password change and
> >>> > >> maybe
> >>> > >> authorisation if there's time left.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > I'm not sure I understood everything right, sorry, but perhaps you
> >>> > >> > can find
> >>> > >> > something useful in contrib/ci/run, contrib/ci/make-check-wrap and
> >>> > >> > contrib/ci/valgrind-condense where CI matches and handles
> >>> > >> > particular tests
> >>> > >> > differently regardless of whether LOG_COMPILER is supported or
> >>> > >> > not. Ping me
> >>> > >> > if you need help figuring out what's going on there.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> So more or less I wanted to have two tests and wanted to run the
> >>> > >> first
> >>> > >> as (simplified):
> >>> > >> PAM_WRAPPER=1 ./src/tests/cwrap/pam_sss_wrapper-tests
> >>> > >> and other as:
> >>> > >> PAM_WRAPPER=1 UID_WRAPPER=1
> >>> > >> ./src/tests/cwrap/pam_sss_wrapper-root--tests
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> but it occured to me that I can always start with UID wrapper, just
> >>> > >> drop
> >>> > >> privileges if I need a strictly non-root test. It's a bit of a hack
> >>> > >> :-)
> >>> > >> but since the root is fake anyway, I think it's acceptable.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Granted this is from outside the build, but maybe you can concoct
> >>> > >> > something
> >>> > >> > from inside as well.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I think this might work as well; thank you!
> >>> > >
> >>> > >I had a short look at libtool. Since we use it during 'make check' not
> >>> > >the actual binaries are called but a libtool generated wrapper script.
> >>> > >If it would be possible to set the environment variables here they
> >>> > >would
> >>> > >be visible for the binary at startup.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Libtool has the concept of 'executable wrappers' to support cygwin and
> >>> > >similar environments but I didn't found an easy way to add own wrapper
> >>> > >here.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Adding the variables directly in the generated wrapper scripts would be
> >>> > >quite a hack. But maybe it would be possible if we add our own version
> >>> > >of build/ltmain.sh where the wrapper scripts are generated in
> >>> > >func_emit_wrapper()?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >So, I'm afraid this is not a direct answer to your question but maybe
> >>> > >libtool might be useful here.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > I read this thread after are came up with almost similar solution
> >>> > as Sumit. With a small difference. I did not decide to inject env
> >>> > variables to generated script but I decided to write yet another
> >>> > wrapper on top of and set env variable there.
> >>> >
> >>> > Here is a POC version. What do you think about such solution.
> >>> >
> >>> > LS
> >>>
> >>> > From 79e8f0e1cdd09ca791755bb03c1e8f38b8078dc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> > From: Lukas Slebodnik <lsleb...@redhat.com>
> >>> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:06:00 +0200
> >>> > Subject: [PATCH] temp
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, this works like a charm!
> >>>
> >>> ACK (but I had to apply with patch(1) in my pwrap branch, not sure if
> >>> the patch is applicable atop master...)
> >>
> >>Oh and of course please come up with a better commit message :-)
> >>
> >It was a "POC version" therefore such commit message.
> >I think tham make distcheck would not pass with my patch.
> >
> >>if you prefer, I can resend along with the pam_wrapper patches...
> >go ahead
> >
> I was expecting that pam_wrapper patches will lend sooner.
> Do you have a solution with env in WIP patches?
> or should we do it before pam tests?
>
> I just wnat to know what to do with this mail thread in patchwork.
The branch is here:
https://github.com/jhrozek/sssd/commits/pwrap
It contains your patch, Pavel's refactoring patches and the pam_wrapper
pam_sss tests. But the tests don't pass after some latest changes to
pam_wrapper, I need to change them.
I guess it would be best to keep the thread around in patchwork until I
send the patches and then just review them as part of the thread.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
