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://email@example.com/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 errors. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org