On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:19:25PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (27/10/15 22:35), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (27/10/15 17:57), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:06:36PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> > On (21/10/15 09:20), Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> > >On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:15:06PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:17:49PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov
wrote:
>>> > >> > Hi Jakub,
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On 10/19/2015 09:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> > >> > >I'm working on pam_sss.so tests[1] and I ran into
a problem that I don't
>>> > >> > >know how to solve best.
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >tl;dr, I would like to set different environment
variables for different
>>> > >> > >tests in order to set up cwrap libraries differently
per-test.
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >I can't use setenv() in the test itself, because
that's too late, I need
>>> > >> > >the variables to be set when
__attribute__(constructor) is run, so normally
>>> > >> > >at program startup, when the libraries are loaded.
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >With cmake it's easy, use set(TEST_ENVIRONMENT).
But with autotools, I
>>> > >> > >only found two ways:
>>> > >> > > - TESTS_ENVIRONMENT - this is fine, but it's
per Makefile.am. So I
>>> > >> > > would have to split the tests more, into
pam_wrapper tests that also
>>> > >> > > require uid_wrapper, tests that only require
pam_wrapper, ...
>>> > >> > > - LOG_COMPILER - this allows to run a wrapper
script before a test
>>> > >> > > that receives the test name as argv. So this
is pretty much what I
>>> > >> > > want except this is a feature new to automake
1.12, which would
>>> > >> > > rule out both RHEL-6 and Ubuntu Trusty (which
is used by Travis)
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >So I'm really leaning towards creating a
src/tests/cwrap/pwrap/Makefile.am
>>> > >> > >and src/tests/cwrap/pwrap_root/Makefile.am. The
downside of multiple
>>> > >> > >Makefile.am files is that there is some code
duplication and the build
>>> > >> > >takes longer. But I still think there is enough
interest (from us and from
>>> > >> > >our users) to support git master on old platforms. I
can file a ticket to
>>> > >> > >remove this and use LOG_COMPILER when we drop support
for RHEL-6 and old
>>> > >> > >Ubuntu versions...
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >If you disagree, please reply, otherwise I'm
going to send a patch with
>>> > >> > >per-test Makefile...
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Ah, so these are unit tests, not integration tests?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I'm working on both, actually. The first part is more or
less an
>>> > >> isolated unit test of all the options that pam_sss supports.
The reason
>>> > >> is that some options (2FA, smart cards, ...) are not really
easily
>>> > >> testable without a mock back end, at the moment we only have
openldap in
>>> > >> the integration tests.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The next step I will start right after I finish this part is
integration
>>> > >> tests that will exercise LDAP authentication, password change
and maybe
>>> > >> authorisation if there's time left.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > I'm not sure I understood everything right, sorry,
but perhaps you can find
>>> > >> > something useful in contrib/ci/run,
contrib/ci/make-check-wrap and
>>> > >> > contrib/ci/valgrind-condense where CI matches and handles
particular tests
>>> > >> > differently regardless of whether LOG_COMPILER is
supported or not. Ping me
>>> > >> > if you need help figuring out what's going on there.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So more or less I wanted to have two tests and wanted to run
the first
>>> > >> as (simplified):
>>> > >> PAM_WRAPPER=1 ./src/tests/cwrap/pam_sss_wrapper-tests
>>> > >> and other as:
>>> > >> PAM_WRAPPER=1 UID_WRAPPER=1
./src/tests/cwrap/pam_sss_wrapper-root--tests
>>> > >>
>>> > >> but it occured to me that I can always start with UID wrapper,
just drop
>>> > >> privileges if I need a strictly non-root test. It's a bit
of a hack :-)
>>> > >> but since the root is fake anyway, I think it's
acceptable.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Granted this is from outside the build, but maybe you can
concoct something
>>> > >> > from inside as well.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I think this might work as well; thank you!
>>> > >
>>> > >I had a short look at libtool. Since we use it during 'make
check' not
>>> > >the actual binaries are called but a libtool generated wrapper
script.
>>> > >If it would be possible to set the environment variables here they
would
>>> > >be visible for the binary at startup.
>>> > >
>>> > >Libtool has the concept of 'executable wrappers' to support
cygwin and
>>> > >similar environments but I didn't found an easy way to add own
wrapper
>>> > >here.
>>> > >
>>> > >Adding the variables directly in the generated wrapper scripts
would be
>>> > >quite a hack. But maybe it would be possible if we add our own
version
>>> > >of build/ltmain.sh where the wrapper scripts are generated in
>>> > >func_emit_wrapper()?
>>> > >
>>> > >So, I'm afraid this is not a direct answer to your question but
maybe
>>> > >libtool might be useful here.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I read this thread after are came up with almost similar solution
>>> > as Sumit. With a small difference. I did not decide to inject env
>>> > variables to generated script but I decided to write yet another
>>> > wrapper on top of and set env variable there.
>>> >
>>> > Here is a POC version. What do you think about such solution.
>>> >
>>> > LS
>>>
>>> > From 79e8f0e1cdd09ca791755bb03c1e8f38b8078dc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> > From: Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
>>> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:06:00 +0200
>>> > Subject: [PATCH] temp
>>>
>>> Thank you, this works like a charm!
>>>
>>> ACK (but I had to apply with patch(1) in my pwrap branch, not sure if
>>> the patch is applicable atop master...)
>>
>>Oh and of course please come up with a better commit message :-)
>>
>It was a "POC version" therefore such commit message.
>I think tham make distcheck would not pass with my patch.
>
>>if you prefer, I can resend along with the pam_wrapper patches...
>go ahead
>
I was expecting that pam_wrapper patches will lend sooner.
Do you have a solution with env in WIP patches?
or should we do it before pam tests?
I just wnat to know what to do with this mail thread in patchwork.
The branch is here:
https://github.com/jhrozek/sssd/commits/pwrap
It contains your patch, Pavel's refactoring patches and the pam_wrapper
pam_sss tests. But the tests don't pass after some latest changes to
pam_wrapper, I need to change them.
I guess it would be best to keep the thread around in patchwork until I
send the patches and then just review them as part of the thread.