Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-13 Thread Petr Cech
On 11/13/2015 08:20 AM, Petr Cech wrote: >Hi Jakub, > >it works due to your reproducer. It is really need to have >setenforce == 1 You meant setenforce 0, right? Hi Jakub, yes, of course, I meant setenforce 1. It was mistake. --^-- 1 --> 0 I did little

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-13 Thread Jakub Hrozek
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 08:20:53AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote: > I reviewed the code. All remarks were addressed. > CI tests passed: > http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/33/10/summary.html > > => ACK > > Regards > > Petr I changed the wording of the commit message a bit (we added an option, not a

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-12 Thread Petr Cech
pages and so on. I hope it will be used only for debuging some hot cases. There are only little remarks in patch. => ACK Regrds Petr PS: I accepted that we have # p = copy; not something like: # copy_ptr = copy; How I suggested previous mail. 0001-SSSD-Add-a-new-command-diag_cmd.patch

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-12 Thread Petr Cech
nagement. Good point. Thank you for remark. > >There are only little remarks in patch. > >=> ACK Then it should be a nack, don't let sloppy patches through:-) OK I will be more restrictive. > >Regrds > >Petr > >PS: I accepted that we have ># p = cop

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-12 Thread Jakub Hrozek
vice management. > > There are only little remarks in patch. > > => ACK Then it should be a nack, don't let sloppy patches through :-) > > Regrds > > Petr > > PS: I accepted that we have > # p = copy; > not something like: > # copy_ptr = copy; > Ho

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-11 Thread Petr Cech
On 11/11/2015 09:32 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >Hi Jakub, > >I just sent the patch to the CI tests and they passed >http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/32/63/summary.html > > >Then I would prefer undocumented. It matches how we (don't) document the > >"command" option. >I agree with little

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-11 Thread Jakub Hrozek
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:12:52AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote: > On 11/10/2015 04:20 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:22:54PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > >>>On (10/11/15 13:15), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:32:30AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote: > > >>On

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-11 Thread Jakub Hrozek
please > ask someone else. > > I can continue with review tomorrow. I'm not in hurry at all. Attached is a patch that adds a better commit message. We can discuss any details related to testing over IRC if you prefer. >From ee4135adf6669221de575ebc92e7b3aabba55ba9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 200

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-11 Thread Petr Cech
ogs/job/32/63/summary.html Then I would prefer undocumented. It matches how we (don't) document the "command" option. I agree with little exception. I think it could be more clear if we write little documentation to commit message or to the code near the new option. But, how everybody wro

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-10 Thread Jakub Hrozek
to Permissive, otherwise sssd might not be able to fork > >an exec pstack.. > So in this case I would prefer if this opton was not documented. > or it should be documented issues with SELinux > Then I would prefer undocumented. It matches how we (don't) document the "command"

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-10 Thread Petr Cech
On 11/09/2015 07:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: There are problems inherent with passing the PID to the child process. There's no guarantee that the process still exists. In the worst-case, the PID could actually be reassigned to a new process and the output you got back from something like

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-10 Thread Jakub Hrozek
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:32:30AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote: > On 11/04/2015 11:24 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I created this patch to try to diagnose an issue where sssd would > >randomly restart on any of machines in a VM cluster without giving too > >much advise why. I think it might be

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-09 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/09/2015 05:32 AM, Petr Cech wrote: > On 11/04/2015 11:24 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I created this patch to try to diagnose an issue where sssd >> would randomly restart on any of machines in a VM cluster without >> giving too much

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-09 Thread Petr Cech
On 11/04/2015 11:24 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: Hi, I created this patch to try to diagnose an issue where sssd would randomly restart on any of machines in a VM cluster without giving too much advise why. I think it might be useful to merge in general. Hi Jakub, I reviewed the patch. Code looks

[SSSD] [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd

2015-11-04 Thread Jakub Hrozek
zek <jhro...@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:41:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] SSSD: Add a new command diag_cmd This command is an optional one that is run when a sbus ping times out and before a SIGKILL commans is sent. This command supports a single template substitution that expands t