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 [0] and it's based on this discussion [1] we
>>> had on this very same mailing list. A pull-request with the
>>> implementation is already opened [2].
>>>
>>> [0]:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/SocketActivatableResponders
>>> [1]:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahoste...
>>> [2]:
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