[SCM] Samba Shared Repository - branch master updated -release-4-0-0alpha6-1045-gfc02c3b0

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Sun Feb 22 13:20:30 MST 2009

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:54:21AM -0800, Steven Danneman wrote:
> > >     This new backend is custom tailored to onefs unique requirements:
> > >     1) No fallback logic
> > >     2) Does not validate the domain of the user
> > >     3) Handles unencrypted passwords
> > 
> > What about these is onefs specific? Why did you put "onefs"
> > into the names?
> Hey Jeremy, Volker,
> No compelling reason to put onefs in the names other than
> the behavior specifically matches the central authority
> provider that we have setup in our system.  However,
> all the programming interfaces are through wbclient.
> What do you think of "pdb_wbc_sam", and "auth_wbc"?  Ill
> make the distinction in the code and comment that the
> difference between auth_wbc and auth_winbind is that the
> first doesnt filter out local user, but instead expects
> the backend to handle them.

Ok, "auth_wbc" looks a hell lot like "auth_winbind". Looking
at the code the only difference between both is the fact
that the current onefs module handles plain text. Is that
really used? Don't we handle plain text at a higher level??
If yes, why not use auth_winbind without fallback?

And, thinking about it a bit more -- what problem do you
want to solve by passdb_onefs (or passdb_wbc...)? Passdb is
supposed to be the local sam of the system. Why do you want
to redirect this to winbind at all?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20090222/64d952b8/attachment.bin

More information about the samba-technical mailing list