Re: [SSSD] [PATCHES] backend: initialize sudo only when it is enabled in services

[Pavel Březina]

On 09/11/2012 06:54 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:52:53PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > On 09/10/2012 10:48 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > > > On 09/07/2012 11:31 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:05:49PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > > > > > 0001 fixes https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1458
> > > > > > 0002 fixes a memory leak when be_process_init() fails. I think it
> > > > > > should be fixed, even though the backend is in this case immediately
> > > > > > terminated
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > the patches compile without errors and work as expected. Nevertheless I
> > > > > have a few comments:
> > > > >
> > > > > 0001:
> > > > > I think it make sense to skip the initialization of the sudo target
> > > > > if there is no responder configured. But to avoid surprises on the
> > > > > user side I would recommend to do the initialization if it is
> > > > > configured explicitly in sssd.conf, i.e sudo_provider = ldap, and
> > > > > give a warning in the logs that the corresponding responder will not
> > > > > be running.
> > > >
> > > > I discussed this with Jakub before writing the patch. sudo_provider
> > > > currently defaults to id_provider. If I get it right, you are
> > > > suggesting to make the default value "none".
> > >
> > > No, sorry for not being clear here. I think the id_provider default is
> > > right. I just wanted to say that if for whatever reasons the
> > > sudo_provider parameter is used explicitly in sssd.conf the
> > > sudo_provider should be initialization even if sudo is not listed in
> > > services.
> > >
> > > bye,
> > > Sumit
> > > > We agreed with Jakub that this makes more pressure on the user to
> > > > understand the configuration so we chose not to do it. Although the
> > > > configurations I've been seeing so far are mostly generated by
> > > > authconfig or ipa-client-install (where are all providers set
> > > > explicitly) so I don't think it is a problem after all. What do you say
> > > > Jakub?
> > > >
> > > > If we decide to do it this way, it will also require changes in man page.
> > > > > > ret = confdb_get_string(ctx->cdb, ctx, CONFDB_MONITOR_CONF_ENTRY,
> > > > > >                        CONFDB_MONITOR_ACTIVE_SERVICES, NULL, &services);
> > > > > > if (ret != EOK) {
> > > > > >    DEBUG(SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE,
> > > > > >          ("Unable to read from confdb [%d]: %s\n", ret, strerror(ret)));
> > > > > >    return ret;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > I would prefer to use confdb_get_string_as_list() and use strcmp()
> > > > > later on, to be on the safe side.
> > > > >
> > > > > 0002: ACK
> > > > >
> > > > > bye,
> > > > > Sumit
> >
> > OK, that makes sense. Patches are attached.
> >
> > I moved the code into separate function.
>
> Thank you for the new version. I only have a few comments left:
> provider_enabled is not used
> in the (!responder_enabled && provider != NULL && strcmp(provider, NO_PROVIDER)
> case, please just print the debug message and call load_backend_module()
> afterwards. So that the provider is loaded as requested in the config
> file. This would also avoid the strange debug message
>
> (Tue Sep 11 18:46:38 2012) [sssd[be[ipa17.devel]]] [be_process_init_sudo] (0x0080): SUDO provider is set, but it is not listed in active services. SUDO support will not work!
> (Tue Sep 11 18:46:38 2012) [sssd[be[ipa17.devel]]] [be_process_init] (0x2000): SUDO backend target successfully loaded from provider [(null)].

Thank you. I had the changes prepared, but I forgot to amend the commit.
The patch is attached.