On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 15:22 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 02:56 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 14:44 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2016 02:33 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> >>> The design page is done  and it's based on this discussion  we
> >>> had on this very same mailing list. A pull-request with the
> >>> implementation is already opened .
> >>> :
> >>> https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/SocketActivatableResponders
> >>> :
> >>> https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/H6JOF5SGGSIJUIWYNANDA73ODHWBS7J2/
> >>> : https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/84
> >> I think we should also provide 'disabled_services' option, to give
> >> admins a way to explicitly disable some responders if the don't want to
> >> used them.
> > How would this work ?
> If responder is listed in disabled_services, it won't be allowed to
> start via socket activation. If disabling the socket as Fabiano
> mentioned in the other mail is enough, I'm fine with it, plese test.
I am not sure this is a good behavior as clients will see a connection
being accept and then dropped, and may misbehave or report strange
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
sssd-devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org