On 03/01/2016 01:53 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 02/25/2016 02:08 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>> First of the responders is converted -)
>
> Sorry for the first delay in review. Before reading the code, I
> submitted the patches to automated tests, so far I found:
>
> Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
> sssd-1.13.90/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c:29:
> included_from: Included from here.
> sssd-1.13.90/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c: scope_hint:
> In function 'sudosrv_get_rules_done'
> sssd-1.13.90/src/util/util.h:144:9: warning: 'debug_name' may be used
> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> # sss_debug_fn(__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, \
> # ^
> sssd-1.13.90/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c:225:17: note:
> 'debug_name' was declared here
> # const char *debug_name;
> # ^
> # 142| int __debug_macro_level = level; \
> # 143| if (DEBUG_IS_SET(__debug_macro_level)) { \
> # 144|-> sss_debug_fn(__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, \
> # 145| __debug_macro_level, \
> # 146| format, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>
> But feel free to only fix the issue in your branch for now, at least
> until
> all the automated downstream tests finish.
I think it is false positive, well it should be anyway, but here's the
diff squashed into forth patch:
diff --git a/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c
b/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c
index 1861e3f..04345f7 100644
--- a/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c
+++ b/src/responder/sudo/sudosrv_get_sudorules.c
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static errno_t sudosrv_cached_rules(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
{
unsigned int flags = SYSDB_SUDO_FILTER_NONE;
struct sysdb_attrs **rules;
- const char *debug_name;
+ const char *debug_name = "unknown";
uint32_t num_rules;
errno_t ret;
const char *attrs[] = {SYSDB_OBJECTCLASS,
Another solution would be to add default branch into the switch in this
function.
Bump.