On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Michael Ströder wrote:
On 9/24/18 4:12 PM, Beale (US), Gareth wrote:
>> I’m not so sure it would be a good idea to support this, honestly.
> Well that rather depends on what you mean by "this". I was reporting
> a problem that seemed an inconsistency to me. Either multiple groups
> with the same GID are supported, or they aren't. The current
> implementation is inconsistent in its response over time, and it
> flags an error and then fails - that should not happen in either
You're absolutely right that the sssd behaviour you've observed is
Yes, I think it's a bug in SSSD. We should either fail right away or
permit the duplicates.
Would either of you care to file a bug? :)
That's why Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> btw it’s a good question to ask why isn’t the check done on saving
> the group. I thought it was and I see code that checks for ID
> uniqueness andeven a test..
So for me it boils down to:
Multiple group entries with same GID are not supported in sssd and
should never be added to the cache. Why it happened in your case has to
Yes, this is what I meant.