Re: doc/rlm_sql is wrong?

This is a discussion on Re: doc/rlm_sql is wrong? within the FreeRADIUS Users forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; --===============0539896368== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5815516.lWrDAoGd8b"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Networking and Network Related > FreeRADIUS Users

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2007
Peter Nixon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: doc/rlm_sql is wrong?

--===============0539896368==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5815516.lWrDAoGd8b";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart5815516.lWrDAoGd8b
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon 08 Jan 2007 21:38, Phil Mayers wrote:
> I've been looking at using rlm_sql to replace a fairly complex set of
> Autz-Type and rlm_passwd maps. Primarily this is to speed up updates
> when e.g. blocking systems and not have to HUP the server.
>
> The doc/rlm_sql file states that processing is done with pairs of
> check/reply items at a time - that is, first the user check items are
> compared and if matches the reply items added; then for each group (in
> order of priority) the group check items are compared and if match the
> reply items added.
>
> The code in rlm_sql.c definitely does not do that, at least in 1.1.3 as
> far as I can understand the code? Instead it appears to smoosh the user
> and all the group check items together, compares them, and if they *all*
> match adds *all* the reply items.
>
> This seems to make groups pretty useless except for using the SQL-Group
> construct in the users file.
>
> Comments?


I believe you are correct. It's been a while since I looked at the SQL Grou=
ps=20
functionality, but last time I did I quickly decided to do the processing I=
=20
required from my own table structure with an SQL function. That way you get=
=20
_exactly_ what you want at the cost of having to think about a schema that=
=20
fits your need. Works pretty well for us :-)

Someone really needs to take a knife the the SQL Groups code.. But, there y=
ou=20
have it. Feel free to help out any time you want :-)

Cheers
=2D-=20

Peter Nixon
http://www.peternixon.net/
PGP Key: http://www.peternixon.net/public.asc

--nextPart5815516.lWrDAoGd8b
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBFoqPAAcdsUt9pJjwRAtrCAJ0aJxfglLgXysU7GOjSS2 +jFNZyxgCg/ug2
i/0cY3FMIkVcuv0qlFgc9Ao=
=1fk9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart5815516.lWrDAoGd8b--

--===============0539896368==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
--===============0539896368==--
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0