On 10/23/2012 09:24 PM, Yehuda Sadeh wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Dan Mick <dan.mick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> So, I've discovered that to make "no cephx" work, you need to explicitly set >>> "none" for the three options (thanks to Yehuda for the tip): >>> >>> auth cluster required = none >>> auth service required = none >>> auth supported = none >>> >>> Since "blank" is not an error, but leads to a disagreement about >>> authentication that's fairly hard to diagnose, should we make it an error to >>> specify a blank entry for those items? >>> >> Maybe fix it so that blank entries would be equivalent to 'none'? >> >> Yehuda > > That should do it: > > diff --git a/src/auth/AuthMethodList.cc b/src/auth/AuthMethodList.cc > index e23ac40..53c8d66 100644 > --- a/src/auth/AuthMethodList.cc > +++ b/src/auth/AuthMethodList.cc > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ AuthMethodList::AuthMethodList(CephContext *cct, string str) > lderr(cct) << "WARNING: unknown auth protocol defined: " << > *iter << dendl; > } > } > + if (auth_supported.empty()) > + auth_supported.push_back(CEPH_AUTH_NONE); > } > > bool AuthMethodList::is_supported_auth(int auth_type) I, for one, believe that when it comes to configuration files, leaving blank values defaulting to something is not the best idea. I would rather have a blank value spitting out an error, as it gives room for someone leaving it blank assuming it will use 'none', as others may assume it will default to 'cephx'. -Joao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
