[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 19:58 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (20/04/16 17:21), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:16 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> >

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET] TOOL: Invalidation of sudo rules at sss_cache

On (20/04/16 10:18), Pavel Březina wrote: >On 04/19/2016 08:18 AM, Petr Cech wrote: >> On 04/18/2016 04:04 PM, Petr Cech wrote: >> > On 04/15/2016 09:54 AM, Pavel Březina wrote: >> > > Hi, CI fails on debian: >> > > http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/41/53/debian_testing/ci.html >> > >> > Hi, >>

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On (20/04/16 17:21), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:16 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> > > >

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] NEGCACHE: Removing of condition for ttl = -1

On (20/04/16 08:41), Petr Cech wrote: >On 04/19/2016 01:55 PM, Petr Cech wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found a strange condition in the function sss_ncache_check_str(). >> >> This condition causes the cache is NOT checked and the result of >> checking is automatically EEXIST. >> >> I dind't find call

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] NEGCACHE: Test fix

On (20/04/16 08:39), Petr Cech wrote: >On 04/19/2016 07:24 PM, Petr Cech wrote: >> Hello, >> >> there is little simple patch which fix the typo. >> > >Hello, > >I wrote better commit message and I added to patch set with > OK, I marked this thread as supperseeded in patchwork LS

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 17:18 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:43:05AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:12 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > > > > From

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:16 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:57:03AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:55 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:43:05AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:12 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > > > From 0dff46755af6063ed4b0339020ae5bb686692de1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > > From: Simo Sorce

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:16 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look > > > at the others. > > > > The last

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:55 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look > > > at the others. > > > > The last

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:12 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > > From 0dff46755af6063ed4b0339020ae5bb686692de1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Simo Sorce > > > > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:13:28 -0500 > > > >

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On 04/20/2016 02:16 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: +for (num = 0, i = 0; i < res->count; i++) { >+const struct ldb_val *val; >+char *name; >+int n; >+int j; Every time I see variables declared in a scope in C except loop control variables I think "This should be a

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look > > at the others. > > The last coverity/clang thing is a false positive, but I initialized > reply to NULL

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] intg: Use different uid range for add_remove tests

On 04/20/2016 12:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: On (20/04/16 12:36), Petr Cech wrote: >On 04/18/2016 10:34 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>ehlo, >> >>I use special local user for building srpms in mock >>and it caused failures for me with running integration tests. >> >>Attached patch is a

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] Do not crash if GetUserAttrs cannot be parsed

On 04/20/2016 11:56 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: Hi Pavel, can you check if this is the right thing to do for methods that parse arguments on their own? To reproduce, it was enough to run: sudo dbus-send --print-reply --system --dest=org.freedesktop.sssd.infopipe

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] intg: Use different uid range for add_remove tests

On (20/04/16 12:36), Petr Cech wrote: >On 04/18/2016 10:34 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> ehlo, >> >> I use special local user for building srpms in mock >> and it caused failures for me with running integration tests. >> >> Attached patch is a workaround. The proper solution would be to wrap >>

[SSSD] Re: [DESIGN] sss_confcheck tool

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:04:23PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote: > Hi, > > I just updated the design for the planned sss_confcheck tool. > It can be found here: > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/ConfigCheckTool > > For convenience I paste it here as well: > > > sss_confcheck tool >

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] intg: Use different uid range for add_remove tests

On 04/18/2016 10:34 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: ehlo, I use special local user for building srpms in mock and it caused failures for me with running integration tests. Attached patch is a workaround. The proper solution would be to wrap detection of active users in CWRAP enviroment. LS Hi

[SSSD] [DESIGN] sss_confcheck tool

Hi, I just updated the design for the planned sss_confcheck tool. It can be found here: https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/ConfigCheckTool For convenience I paste it here as well: sss_confcheck tool Related ticket(s): ​https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2269 Problem

[SSSD] [PATCH] Do not crash if GetUserAttrs cannot be parsed

Hi Pavel, can you check if this is the right thing to do for methods that parse arguments on their own? To reproduce, it was enough to run: sudo dbus-send --print-reply --system --dest=org.freedesktop.sssd.infopipe /org/freedesktop/sssd/infopipe

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look > > at the others. > > The last coverity/clang thing is a false positive, but I initialized > reply to NULL

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > From 0dff46755af6063ed4b0339020ae5bb686692de1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Simo Sorce > > > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:13:28 -0500 > > > Subject: [PATCH 02/15] Server: Enable Watchdog in all daemons > > >

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:59:57AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look > > > at the others. > > > > The last

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH SET} A new Secrets service

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look > > at the others. > > The last coverity/clang thing is a false positive, but I initialized > reply to NULL

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] ldap_test.py: Modify enum cache timeouts

On 04/18/2016 12:39 PM, Michal Židek wrote: On 04/18/2016 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: On (18/04/16 11:14), Michal Židek wrote: On 04/18/2016 10:39 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: On (02/12/15 17:10), Michal Židek wrote: Hi! I saw some integration tests failures recently, and I think there

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] NEGCACHE: Removing of condition for ttl = -1

On 04/19/2016 01:55 PM, Petr Cech wrote: Hi, I found a strange condition in the function sss_ncache_check_str(). This condition causes the cache is NOT checked and the result of checking is automatically EEXIST. I dind't find call of sss_ncache_check_str() with ttl = -1, except in tests.

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] NEGCACHE: Test fix

On 04/19/2016 07:24 PM, Petr Cech wrote: Hello, there is little simple patch which fix the typo. Hello, I wrote better commit message and I added to patch set with NEGCACHE: Removing of condition for ttl = -1