On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:19:13PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 10.4.2012 18:05, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:22:37AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>On 04/03/2012 09:17 AM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>On 03/26/2012 08:57 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1233
>>>>>
>>>>>As Jakub suggested, I changed sss_sudo_make_request() to return only
>>>>>errno code, instead of errno and sss_status. I hope this will make
the
>>>>>Coverity happy.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that's not exactly what I had mind. I was thinking about
>>>>modifying sss_cli_check_socket() and sss_cli_make_request_nochecks() to
>>>>not return separate sss_status and errno return codes but only errno.
>>>>This patch only modifies the sudo caller of the two functions.
>>>>
>>>>The catch is that especially with NSS calls, some errors are
>>>>recoverable. Notably the combination of NSS_STATUS_TRYAGAIN and ERANGE
>>>>tells the glibc to retry the lookup with a bigger buffer. So should we
>>>>only use one return code, we would have to account for this case, too.
>>>
>>>Ok. The new patch tests ret instead of errnop and frees repbuf even in
>>>error branch. This should make the Coverity happy.
>>>
>>>I didn't found a ticket for what you suggested so I created one:
>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1285
>>
>>Now with the patch attached :-)
>>
>
>Ack to the code but can you chance the commit message? It's misleading.
>
>What Pavel fixed in this commit is how error checking is done with
>return values of sss_sudo_make_request(), not a memory leak.
Patch attached.
Ack!