ping
On 05/30/2012 11:22 AM, Peter Schiffer wrote:
Hello,
I've updated the patch against the latest man-pages 3.41.
Also, I've added description of the initgroups database,
reformulated the note and moved it to the return action.
What do you think?
Thanks,
peter
--- nsswitch.conf.5.org 2012-05-10 22:13:23.000000000 +0200
+++ nsswitch.conf.5 2012-05-30 11:16:26.881542800 +0200
@@ -59,6 +59,11 @@
.BR gethostbyname (3)
and related functions.
.TP
+.B initgroups
+Supplementary group access list, used by
+.BR getgrouplist (3)
+function.
+.TP
.B netgroup
Network-wide list of hosts and users, used for access rules.
C libraries before glibc 2.1 supported netgroups only over NIS.
@@ -241,6 +246,10 @@
.B return
Return a result now.
Do not call any further lookup functions.
+However, for compatibility reasons, if this is the selected action
+for the `group' database and the `notfound' status,
+and the configuration file does not contain the `initgroups' line,
+the next lookup function is always called, without affecting the
search result.
.TP
.B continue
Call the next lookup function.
On 03/30/2012 09:17 AM, Peter Schiffer wrote:
Hello guys,
thanks for looking into this. I am adding some notes below:
On 03/30/2012 01:27 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Mark R Bannister
<mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29/03/2012 19:34, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Mark R Bannister
<mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28/03/2012 19:27, Peter Schiffer wrote:
Hello,
I am suggesting the following update of the "notfound" status on
the
nsswitch.conf.5 man page. I am not 100% sure that this is the
correct
place
where this information on the man page should be placed. Any
comments
are
welcome.
Hi Peter,
I did a rewrite of the nsswitch.conf man page in October last year:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.man/2366/match=nsswitch+conf
I'm still waiting for Michael to incorporate these changes. May I
suggest
you send in a patch that is applied against this? I would also
suggest
that
if you're going to make reference to "initgroups" you'll need to
add some
further description somewhere that explains what this is and when
you
would
use it.
Looking a little deeper at this, I'd like another set of eyes. Mark,
would you be able to review Peter's patch?
Thanks,
Michael
I can't find this comment in glibc myself, there's nothing to this
effect in
grp/initgroups.c ?
Follow Peter's URL.
I've tested on a build with glibc 2.5 - admittedly not the latest
version
but it does feature the initgroups functionality - and I am not
witnessing
this behaviour. My configuration file has no initgroups line, and
this
entry:
group: db [NOTFOUND=return] files
...always returns as expected if my /var/db/group.db file does not
contain
the group entry that I am searching for.
So I don't concur with the suggested change ...
The result is always as expected, the added note should clarify how
the search is done. Important example would be like this:
group: files [!NOTFOUND=return] XXXXXX
what means, according to the current text in the man page, that if the
result from "files" is either SUCCESS, UNAVAIL or TRYAGAIN, then,
it should be returned. Well, it is, but the XXXXXX is also _always_
searched.
Without the suggested note, it can be confusing while testing or
setting up,
also, if the XXXXXX is some remote service, this can create some hard
to find
delays.
Thanks,
peter
It looks like the change only arrived in glibc 2.14. Would you be able
to take a look there?
Thanks,
Michael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
