[SSSD] [sssd PR#89][comment] nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/89 Title: #89: nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req lslebodn commented: """ and I will check rest of ldap + AD related tests tomorrow. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/89#issuecomment-263641880

[SSSD] [sssd PR#89][comment] nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/89 Title: #89: nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req lslebodn commented: """ Few multi domain tests failed: The first one was related to enumeration. Other failures probably as well. ``` [sssd domains = LOCAL,LDAP services = nss, pam [nss]

[SSSD] [sssd PR#89][comment] nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/89 Title: #89: nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req lslebodn commented: """ One netgroupt test failed: Decrease the cache time out and add new entry for nisNetgroupTriple ``` echo "entry_cache_timeout = 60" >> /etc/sssd/sssd.conf // clear cache

[SSSD] [sssd PR#89][comment] nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/89 Title: #89: nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req lslebodn commented: """ Regression test for ticket https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1229 failed. ``` > /var/log/sssd/sssd_nss.log" // clear case and restart sssd kill -STOP `pidof sssd_be`"

[SSSD] [sssd PR#89][comment] nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/89 Title: #89: nss: rewrite nss responder so it uses cache_req lslebodn commented: """ There is a Wformat-security warning and therefore mock build failed on fedora ``` src/db/sysdb_ops.c: In function ‘sysdb_search_object_attr’: src/db/sysdb_ops.c:4503:22:

[SSSD] Re: Design document - SSSD KCM server

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:49:52AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 11/22/2016 09:38 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 09:23 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > >> OK, so the service is only semi-socket-activated? If we're keeping tevent > >> timers > >> around for renewals and

[SSSD] Re: Design discussion: Fleet Commander integration

I will add on CC to Alberto because he is the one that knows better this feature, but AFAIK the only thing to be defined in that object is that resolution order setting, and should be downloaded also with SSSD at login time so the Fleet Commander Client can read it. The global settings object

[SSSD] Re: Design discussion: Fleet Commander integration

On ma, 28 marras 2016, Oliver Gutiérrez wrote: Hi everybody, As I started to design nd develop the changes needed in Fleet Commander, and after a meeting with Alberto Ruiz about the things we need, in the FreeIPA side of the things it is all Ok. The only thing that should be added is the

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (29/11/16 12:13), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio > >wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Lukas Slebodnik > >> wrote: > >>> On

[SSSD] [sssd PR#94][comment] Enable {socket,dbus}-activation for responders

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/94 Title: #94: Enable {socket,dbus}-activation for responders fidencio commented: """ On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Pavel Březina > wrote:

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On (29/11/16 12:13), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Lukas Slebodnik >> wrote: >>> On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>>On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: On 11/28/2016 10:47

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:48:31AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (29/11/16 11:03), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:50:31AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > >> On (29/11/16 10:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > >>

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On (29/11/16 11:03), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:50:31AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> On (29/11/16 10:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> >> On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >> >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Sumit Bose wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> The design page is done [0] and it's based on this discussion [1] we >> had on this very same mailing list. A pull-request with the >> implementation is

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > The design page is done [0] and it's based on this discussion [1] we > had on this very same mailing list. A pull-request with the > implementation is already opened [2]. > > [0]:

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:50:31AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (29/11/16 10:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > >> On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >> >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > >> >>

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On (29/11/16 10:30), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:24:03AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Lukas Slebodnik >> wrote: >> > On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >>On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On (29/11/16 10:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >> >> On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:24:03AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > > On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >>On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > >>> On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > >> On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >>> On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On (29/11/16 10:01), Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >>> On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>> > > The design page is

[SSSD] [sssd PR#94][comment] Enable {socket,dbus}-activation for responders

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/94 Title: #94: Enable {socket,dbus}-activation for responders fidencio commented: """ On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Pavel Březina wrote: > One thing I don't like about those patches is that we always recreate the > idle

[SSSD] Re: Design document - Socket-activatable responders

On (28/11/16 11:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >> On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> > > The design page is done [0] and it's based on this discussion [1] we

[SSSD] [sssd PR#96][closed] CONFDB: Supress clang false passitive warnings

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/96 Author: lslebodn Title: #96: CONFDB: Supress clang false passitive warnings Action: closed To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git fetch ghsssd pull/96/head:pr96 git checkout pr96

[SSSD] [sssd PR#96][+Pushed] CONFDB: Supress clang false passitive warnings

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/96 Title: #96: CONFDB: Supress clang false passitive warnings Label: +Pushed ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[SSSD] [sssd PR#96][comment] CONFDB: Supress clang false passitive warnings

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/96 Title: #96: CONFDB: Supress clang false passitive warnings lslebodn commented: """ On (28/11/16 14:13), fidencio wrote: >Acked-by: Fabiano Fidêncio > Thank you for review. master: * 13b1d270fb72cf2c2e18f0b2a59cb424c51f7675 LS

[SSSD] [sssd PR#94][comment] Enable {socket,dbus}-activation for responders

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/94 Title: #94: Enable {socket,dbus}-activation for responders pbrezina commented: """ One thing I don't like about those patches is that we always recreate the idle timer. Can we get around this (maybe also for the client idle timeout)? What I have i