[Review Request] libwbclient-sssd

[Michael Adam]

Hi Sumit,

It is a good move to make sssd a server for the
libwbclient API.

As Andrew said, this API is not optimal and we should
consider extending and changing it in the future, i.e.
get provide a "next version" of the API.

But since this is what we have right now, it is
absolutely correct to attach sssd to it.

Now, regarding your request to include the libwbclient-sssd
library into the samba code tree:
I think this is wrong: a libwbclient-implementation belongs
to the sever for which is written as an interface, not tho
the consumer(s).
I.e. samba's libwbclient belongs to winbindd, and the libwbclient-ssd
belongs to sssd. (I.e. if we would ever split winbindd out into a
separate code tree, then the libwbclinent belongs into that tree
not into the file server...)

That being said, there is of course the problem of testing.
We would actually need an "official" test suite for libwbclient
that fixes the api and semantics. This test suite would belong to
a libwbclient-devel package and can then be used by any
server+libwbclient implementation to test the implementation.
Of course we don't have it, but it would be the right thing to
do imho.

Cheers - Michael


On 2014-05-09 at 18:52 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking for review and comments on my patches in
> http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/sbose/public_git/samba.git/log/ .
> 
> They add a replacement for libwbclient which talks to SSSD
> (https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/) instead of winbindd. One of the
> use-cases for this library is to run Samba on FreeIPA clients where the
> FreeIPA domain already has a trust relationship to an AD forest.
> 
> Currently not all calls are implemented but it already works quite well.
> I would prefer to maintain this library in the Samba source tree
> instead e.g. in the SSSD tree. We already have a id-mapping plugin for
> cifs-utils in the SSSD tree but here the plugin interface is very small
> and I think chances are low that it will change any time soon.
> libwbclient on the other hand is more complex and contains quite some
> calls which are independent of the backend (e.g. memory management and
> conversion utilities). I tired to extract this common code in some of
> the patches so that it can be used by both libraries.
> 
> Please let me know if you think that those patches can be included in
> the samba tree (and what I have to fix/change to make it happen) or if
> you think it would be better to maintain it externally?
> 
> Btw, I will be available for discussion next week on SambaXP.
> 
> Thank you for your help.
> 
> bye,
> Sumit
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140517/59ecc3f4/attachment.pgp>