On 19.7.2016 08:40, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 9.7.2016 14:46, Ben Lipton wrote:
On 07/07/2016 11:19 AM, Ben Lipton wrote:
Thanks for the review! Comments below.
On 07/01/2016 07:42 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 29.06.2016 20:46, Ben Lipton wrote:
The attached patch silences some annoying messages I've been getting
when upgrading the freeipa-client package on F24:
WARNING: 'UseLogin yes' is not supported in Fedora and may cause
This will be fixed by openssh-7.2p2-9.fc24
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350347) so we probably
shouldn't worry about it.
Could not load host key: /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
This is because by default sshd looks for all of
/etc/ssh/ssh_host_ed25519_key and /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key, but
Fedora doesn't generate a DSA key by default.
Since the script causing the message only looks at the return code
from sshd to determine the right options to use, I thought it might
be ok to discard the output. What do you think?
Hello, I don't like to hiding errors/warnings. Can you determine and
solve the root cause?
I definitely agree with this in principle, but in this case the
purpose of this code is to try different, potentially wrong,
parameters to sshd until it finds a combination that it accepts. It
seems like in some environments this would produce error messages that
aren't actionable and don't indicate any problem for package function,
which is why I didn't think these messages were necessarily worth
On the other hand, if the code makes the wrong decision about sshd
version we might be interested in error logs that show why. Can we log
this to a file instead of the console, maybe?
If you'd prefer just addressing the root cause, a patch that prevents
the missing host key error is attached, but it won't stop the error
messages showing up when openssh is an older version.
Whoops, realized that my patch created a tempfile and didn't delete it.
I think the first version of the patch was OK. sshd is called only to
check which set of authorized keys options to use, we don't really care
about anything else, so we can safely ignore whatever it puts to stderr.
ACK on the first version of the patch
Anyone against pushing it?
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code