On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:47:50AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote: > On 05/02/2016 08:53 AM, Petr Cech wrote: > > On 04/28/2016 01:41 PM, Pavel Březina wrote: > > > On 04/26/2016 09:38 AM, Petr Cech wrote: > > > > Hi list, > > > > > > > > this simple patch fixes talloc hierarchy in initializing negative caches > > > > in responders. > > > > > > > > This patch is applicable after [1]. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg26515.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch seems sane, but I think we should rather move ncache to rctx > > > and its initialization to common responder initialization since we use > > > it basically everywhere and when we convert responders to cache_req we > > > will use it even in those responders that don't implement it yet. > > > > Hello Pavel, > > > > thank you for respond. > > > > I think, it is possible. There are two responders which don't use > > ncache, but it is not obstacle. > > Those are ssh and autofs responders. SSH looks up user and will use > cache_req which can take advantage of negative cache for free thus autofs > will be the only one where it is not used. I think it is worth it, but if > anyone disagrees I can ack this patch since it is definitely correct.
I agree it would be nice to enable them with negative cache, but wouldn't it be more systematic to convert the ssh responder to cache_req instead? For autofs we can file a ticket, I'm not sure we will convert that one to cache_req at all (and the cache logic there is a bit different from the other responders anyway IIRC..) _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
