On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:57:14AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 02/01/2017 11:41 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:39:07AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > > I've done a first WIP patch for this matter but Jakub pointed out the
> > > approach is not correct as the PAM
On 02/01/2017 11:41 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:39:07AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
I've done a first WIP patch for this matter but Jakub pointed out the
approach is not correct as the PAM doesn't use the cache the same way
as other responders do.
Differently from the
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:39:07AM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> I've done a first WIP patch for this matter but Jakub pointed out the
> approach is not correct as the PAM doesn't use the cache the same way
> as other responders do.
>
> Differently from the other responders, PAM tries to
On 02/01/2017 11:15 AM, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 02/01/2017 10:39 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
I've done a first WIP patch for this matter but Jakub pointed out the
approach is not correct as the PAM doesn't use the cache the same way
as other responders do.
The patch uses wrong function,
On 02/01/2017 10:39 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
I've done a first WIP patch for this matter but Jakub pointed out the
approach is not correct as the PAM doesn't use the cache the same way
as other responders do.
The patch uses wrong function, please use
cache_req_initgroups_by_name(). (I'm
