On 07/20/2014 10:05 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:10:53PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:41:23PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 07:59 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:38, Pavel Reichl prei...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:10:53PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Sure, attached patches address your and Lukas' comments.
They indeed do, ACK
master:
* 1614e1b25a98ff2f03648c4bf61d750fb688285a
* b12e2500237f33c44807d7e5b377ec06007c7252
sssd-1-11:
*
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:10:53PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:41:23PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 07:59 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:38, Pavel Reichl prei...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
please see attached
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:41:23PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 07:59 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:38, Pavel Reichl prei...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patches.
I found out that if we go with approach introduced in
On (10/07/14 16:38), Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patches.
I found out that if we go with approach introduced in previous version
(in case of LDAP provider assume SID comes from default domain) this can
lead to resolutions of SIDs like S-1-5-32-545 and also SIDs of non-posix
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 09:56 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
[snip]
You will change patch to address Jakub comments.
As you command m'lord. ;-)
So, you can also change
few nitpicks ;-) I would ignore them if patches were already ACK-ed.
From 77f41aea31afd642d26057018181394c65d81000 Mon Sep
On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:38, Pavel Reichl prei...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patches.
I found out that if we go with approach introduced in previous version
(in case of LDAP provider assume SID comes from default domain) this can
lead to resolutions of SIDs like
Hello,
please see attached patches.
I found out that if we go with approach introduced in previous version
(in case of LDAP provider assume SID comes from default domain) this can
lead to resolutions of SIDs like S-1-5-32-545 and also SIDs of non-posix
groups which in case of disabled id
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:25:23PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 07:03:01PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:41 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:30:31PM +0200, Pavel
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:41 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:30:31PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patch.
Regards,
PR
The patch solves the problem, but I think
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 07:03:01PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:41 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:30:31PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patch.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:30:31PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patch.
Regards,
PR
The patch solves the problem, but I think one part should be improved:
@@ -875,7 +893,13 @@ static void
sdap_ad_tokengroups_initgr_mapping_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:30:31PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see attached patch.
Regards,
PR
The patch solves the problem, but I think one part should be improved:
@@ -875,7 +893,13 @@ static void
Hello,
please see attached patch.
Regards,
PR
From 8640ce37711863b57f72f61bfd0bd1bcb34caaa3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavel Reichl prei...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:16:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] LDAP: tokengroups do not work with id_provider=ldap
With plain LDAP provider we
14 matches
Mail list logo
