On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Michael Ströder wrote: > On 9/24/18 4:12 PM, Beale (US), Gareth wrote: > >> I’m not so sure it would be a good idea to support this, honestly. > > > > Well that rather depends on what you mean by "this". I was reporting > > a problem that seemed an inconsistency to me. Either multiple groups > > with the same GID are supported, or they aren't. The current > > implementation is inconsistent in its response over time, and it > > flags an error and then fails - that should not happen in either > > scenario. > > You're absolutely right that the sssd behaviour you've observed is > inconsistent.
Yes, I think it's a bug in SSSD. We should either fail right away or permit the duplicates. Would either of you care to file a bug? :) > > That's why Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > btw it’s a good question to ask why isn’t the check done on saving > > the group. I thought it was and I see code that checks for ID > > uniqueness andeven a test.. > > So for me it boils down to: > Multiple group entries with same GID are not supported in sssd and > should never be added to the cache. Why it happened in your case has to > be examined. Yes, this is what I meant. _______________________________________________ sssd-users mailing list -- sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-users-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org
