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

LDAP: Improve error treatment from sdap_cli_connect() in ldap_auth #442

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

fidencio
Copy link
Contributor

@fidencio fidencio commented Nov 8, 2017

Because we weren't treating the errors coming from
sdap_cli_connect_recv() properly we ended up introducing a regression in
the commit add7286, related to offline authentication.

From now on, let's properly treat errors coming from auth_connect_send(),
which were treated before by going offline when be_resolve_server_recv()
failed, and propagate ETIMEDOUT to the request, thus going offline and
allowing offline authentication on those cases.

This patch fixes the regression reported by Lukáš on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459609#c9. (And I have to say a big thanks for finding this out!)

Related:
https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3451

Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio fidencio@redhat.com

Because we weren't treating the errors coming from
sdap_cli_connect_recv() properly we ended up introducing a regression in
the commit add7286, related to offline authentication.

From now on, let's properly treat errors coming from auth_connect_send(),
which were treated before by going offline when be_resolve_server_recv()
failed, and propagate ETIMEDOUT to the request, thus going offline and
allowing offline authentication on those cases.

Related:
https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3451

Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@redhat.com>
@fidencio
Copy link
Contributor Author

fidencio commented Nov 8, 2017

I've ran two downstream tests and both passed successfully:

  • 2131430 (the one that found this regression)
  • 2131429 (the one recommended by Jakub when the first patch was pushed)

If you guys have some idea about a better set of downstream tests to run, please, ping me in private with the link that I could clone.

@sumit-bose
Copy link
Contributor

The patch makes sense and passes the CI (with the current exception on F27 and rawhide caused by the newer libldb). ACK

@fidencio, please let me know when you have the results of the regression test.

@lslebodn
Copy link
Contributor

@sumit-bose I'm waiting for results of tests.

I'll push the patch after good results with your ACK

@sumit-bose
Copy link
Contributor

@lslebodn, thanks, shall I set the Accepted flag or will you do it?

@lslebodn
Copy link
Contributor

There were some random failures which I did not see before. But it worked well after re-executing problematic jobs 5 times. I hope it was not related :-)

@lslebodn
Copy link
Contributor

master:

@lslebodn lslebodn closed this Nov 10, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants