Re: RE: winbind authenticator patches

Attached are patches for the below approach. Seem OK on both FBSD and
RedHat 7.3.

Please review.

Thanks,
Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Murdock" <jmurdock@itraktech.com>
To: "Squid Developers" <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
Cc: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@marasystems.com>; "Chemolli Francesco (USI)"
<ChemolliF@GruppoCredit.it>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: RE: winbind authenticator patches

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@marasystems.com>
> To: "Jerry Murdock" <jmurdock@itraktech.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 8:25 AM
> Subject: Fwd: RE: winbind authenticator patches
>
> > Subject: RE: winbind authenticator patches
> > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:08:27 +0200
> > From: "Chemolli Francesco (USI)" <ChemolliF@GruppoCredit.it>
> > To: "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <hno@marasystems.com>,
squid-dev@squid-cache.org
> >
> > No, they have a problem (checked this with abartlet).
> >
> > They don't check the return code, only the struct. If the return code is
> > false, then the result may very well be senseless garbage. Thus they
> > both have to be checked, return code first and result then.
> >
> Please bear with me, I'm looking for a little guidance. I'm very willing
to
> track this down, but saying my C is a little rusty would be flattery.
>
> I think the real problem is that the return code is currently being
compared
> to WINBINDD_OK, when it should be compared to NSS_STATUS_SUCCESS.
>
> Under FBSD, these are not the same value(WINBINDD_OK=1,
> NSS_STATUS_SUCCESS=0).
>
> I'm loading up a Linux session in VMware now for comparison, but I assume
> they are the same value under Linux, otherwise I don't see how the code
> could work there.
>
> If this sounds reasonable, is there any need to also check response.result
> in the struct?
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>