Thanks for explanation :).
Something like that?
tmp =
ldb_msg_find_attr_as_string(res->msgs[0],CONFDB_DOMAIN_ACCESS_PROVIDER,NULL);
if (tmp && strcasecmp(tmp, "permit") != 0) {
.......
And documentatión
<term>access_provider (string)</term>
<listitem>
<para>
The access control provider used for the domain.
There are two built-in access providers (in
addition to any included in installed backends)
Internal special providers are:
</para>
<para>
<quote>permit</quote> always allow access. It's the
only permitted access provider for a local domain.
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:31:58 +0200
> From: jhro...@redhat.com
> To: sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> Subject: Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] Bad check for id_provider=local and
> access_provider=permit
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:01:44AM -0500, Ariel Barria wrote:
> > apologize for the patch file name :D
> >
> > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1172
>
> Hi Ariel,
>
> thank you very much for the patch! The naming and formatting of the patch
> is fine.
>
> This approach would remove the startup error as described in the ticket
> but maybe it would be better if the "permit" access provider because
> that's what the local provider does internally anyway. It would also warn
> administrators who tries to use some other access
>
> So I think the proper fix would be to swap "local" for "permit" in the check.
> We should probably also amend the documentation (src/man/sssd.conf.5.xml)
> where the permit access provider is described to say that it's the only
> allowed access provider for a local domain.
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
