Hi Rafal! Thats why I asked. If u need usertype to be passed onto ONLY to useradd script, then no db is needed. Do you have any other requirements for passing data to scripts, please indicate?
If usertype is needed for any other script, then we need to consider gumd specific db (I agree that UID_MIN, UID_MAX is hackish but thats the quickest! as we will need sometime to implement gumd specific db if needed for your requirements) So please list your requirements for passing "what DATA to what SCRIPT", and then I can come back to you about the solution and timeline. BR imran ________________________________ From: Rafał Krypa [[email protected]] Sent: 26 November 2014 12:57 To: Zaman, Imran; Krzysztof Sasiak; Jussi Laako; Le Foll, Dominique Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Dev] Gumd and security-manager integration On 2014-11-26 11:38, Zaman, Imran wrote: Hi Krzysztof! Currently gumd does not support any additional data to be passed on to scripts, but we can look into it when you guys specify exactly which info. needs to be passed on? For user type, its not currently stored anywhere inside gumd (as gumd does not have separate db) Hi Imran, Why would it need a data base to pass such information? When a user is created, it's type is one of the arguments passed by the client to gumd. Gumd knows the value of this parameter and could pass it down to hooks. but from the UID_MIN and UID_MAX one can determine if its a system user or a normal user? That would be very hackish. UID_MIN and UID_MAX are configuration variables internal to gumd. These variables could change and hooks should rely on their value nor shouldn't have to read and parse gumd configuration files. We need gumd to pass user type to useradd hooks. If you need it to re-calculate the user type using UID_MIN and UID_MAX internally in gumd, that's fine. But the hook should get a simple value from {system, admin, guest, normal}. Best regards, Rafal Krypa _______________________________________ From: Krzysztof Sasiak [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: 26 November 2014 10:11 To: Zaman, Imran; Rafał Krypa; Jussi Laako; Le Foll, Dominique Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Dev] Gumd and security-manager integration Hello Imran, As for the security-manager status: - we're wrapping up on the security-manager offline mode - a CLI tool has been created and patches are being merged gradually into tizen.org gerrit repository - we've started implementing the API for handling user management inside security-manager - we have a dependency on several features from cynara - discussions on the schedule are going on right now We also have a small dependency on GUMD: what about additional data passed to user scripts. I mean for example: user type. I'll come up with a schedule as soon as we agree on the dependencies with cynara guys. On 25.11.2014 14:28, Zaman, Imran wrote: Hi Rafal! Can you please share the details as to where are we with gumd and security manager? Any idea about the timeline would be great. BR imran ________________________________________ From: Dev [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Rafał Krypa [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: 27 October 2014 14:31 To: Jussi Laako; Le Foll, Dominique Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Dev] Gumd and security-manager integration On 2014-10-16 14:39, Jussi Laako wrote: On 16.10.2014 11:43, Rafał Krypa wrote: Could you please describe this subject in detail? What problems did you encounter while considering integration by hooks? Why was it considered unfeasible? If similar problems could also affect integration with security-manager, I'd like to avoid them as early as possible. Conclusion was that it is impossible to perfectly roll-back hook actions in case of failure because the roll-back can also fail. If not for anything else but due to bugs in implementation. IMHO a perfect roll-back for operations like user creation and removal isn't that important. If some step during creation of a user fails (or is interrupted by power loss) it should be enough to leave the user in half-created state. Such half-created account should have the following characteristics: - cannot be utilized, prevent users from logging into it (this can be achieved by enabling the account in the very last step of the process) - can be enumerated and removed, like any proper user account - until removed, cannot be re-used by subsequent user creations Having that, a device administrator could recover from failed user creation by entering user management again, removing the half-baked account and trying to create it again. It is possible to handle user removal in a similar way. To be honest, in my proposal for wrapping gumd with security-manager functions I didn't intend to provide fully transactional removal and creation of users. I considered it too difficult and not worth it. And similarly, as far as i know there is no roll-back support for failed application installation (or de-installation or upgrade). Do we need to discuss it for applications as well? Dominig, if you have any concerns about my approach, please let us know. At the moment I don't see technical reasons for choosing gumd wrapping over hooks. Since hooks seem to be preferred by gumd developers and should be easier for all of us, they look like a viable option to me. Best regards, Rafal Krypa --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev -- Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle Samsung_Logo_for_Mail_Signature Krzysztof Sasiak Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- [cid:[email protected]] Rafał Krypa Samsung R&D institute Poland Samsung Electronics Office +48223778135 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
