On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:47:06PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ACK
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/19/18/summary.html
master: 7c18b65dbdeb584a946c055f2db3814544b17232
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
On (24/07/15 18:41), Michal Židek wrote:
On 07/23/2015 09:46 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (20/07/15 10:41), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It is possible to have a machine where none of the GPOs associated with
it include access-control rules. Currently, this results in a
denial-by-system-error.
We
On 24 Jul 2015, at 18:41, Michal Židek mzi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/23/2015 09:46 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (20/07/15 10:41), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It is possible to have a machine where none of the GPOs associated with
it include access-control rules. Currently, this results in a
On 07/23/2015 09:46 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (20/07/15 10:41), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It is possible to have a machine where none of the GPOs associated with
it include access-control rules. Currently, this results in a
denial-by-system-error.
We need to treat this case as allowing the
On (20/07/15 10:41), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It is possible to have a machine where none of the GPOs associated with
it include access-control rules. Currently, this results in a
denial-by-system-error.
We need to treat this case as allowing the user (see the test cases in
It is possible to have a machine where none of the GPOs associated with
it include access-control rules. Currently, this results in a
denial-by-system-error.
We need to treat this case as allowing the user (see the test cases in
