Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

krb5: return to responder that pkinit is not available #204

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sumit-bose
Copy link
Contributor

If pkinit is not available for a user but other authentication methods are
SSSD should still fall back to local certificate based authentication if
Smartcard credentials are provided.

Resolves https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3343

If pkinit is not available for a user but other authentication methods
are SSSD should still fall back to local certificate based
authentication if Smartcard credentials are provided.

Resolves https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3343
@jhrozek jhrozek self-assigned this Mar 28, 2017
@jhrozek
Copy link
Contributor

jhrozek commented Mar 28, 2017

LGTM, the code comment helps understand the complex condition, thanks.

I just ran CI and Coverity to rubber-stamp the patch before pushing.

@lslebodn
Copy link
Contributor

I would personally prefer some macro or local variable because added condition is too complicated IMHO. Because there is ( (!A && !B) || ( ( A || B) && IS_SC_AUTHTOK() ) which is equivalent to

C = ( A || B)
( !C || ( C && IS_SC_AUTHTOK() )

@sumit-bose
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree that the overall condition is complicated and I thought about extracting some conditions as well. In the end I decided against it because I think it helps to understand the conditions if each authentication type is listed explicitly.

@lslebodn
Copy link
Contributor

lslebodn commented Mar 28, 2017 via email

@jhrozek
Copy link
Contributor

jhrozek commented Mar 29, 2017

I really don't mind one way or another. I find all the proposed versions of the condition complex, that's why I'm glad there is a comment atop them.

So from my point of view, I'm fine with the first version

@lslebodn
Copy link
Contributor

lslebodn commented Mar 29, 2017 via email

@jhrozek
Copy link
Contributor

jhrozek commented Mar 29, 2017

ok, thanks!

@jhrozek jhrozek added the Pushed label Mar 29, 2017
@jhrozek
Copy link
Contributor

jhrozek commented Mar 29, 2017

@jhrozek jhrozek closed this Mar 29, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants