-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/08/2010 12:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Just a reminder that it's been about a month since there was any
activity on this patch.
*bump* Any word on this one, Sumit? Would you prefer that I have someone
else look into this?
On 06/10/2010 07:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 05:56 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this patch for master saves all IPA HBAC data in one transaction and
>> proceeds if the sysdb transaction fails. It addresses a review comment
>> from the "Use new schema for HBAC service checks" patch.
>>
>> The first patch changes the handling of the host data to be compatible
>> with the other data.
> Nack.
> I think it would be better form in set_local_and_remote_host_info() to
> maintain a private memory context onto which to allocate the
> hbac_host_info objects until we're ready to return, at which time they
> should be stolen back onto mem_ctx.
> This way if we end up in the failure condition, we don't exit the
> function with potentially host_count chunks of memory of sizeof(struct
> hbac_host_info) sitting around uselessly until the mem_ctx is eventually
> freed.
> For most functions, I wouldn't recommend this, but this particular
> function has the potential of allocating a LOT of memory (if there are a
> lot of HBAC rules on the server) and I'd prefer that we not hang onto it
> if something goes wrong.
>> The second removes the individual transactions and
>> introduces a common sysdb transaction.
>>
> Nack.
> In hbac_save_data_to_sysdb() you start a transaction, then create a
> tmp_ctx, but if talloc_new() fails, you exit the function without
> cancelling the transaction.
> You have a memory leak on the success case of hbac_save_data_to_sysdb().
> You're not freeing tmp_ctx here. (Yeah, it's a short leak, as it will be
> cleared when mem_ctx is, but it's bad form).
> Similar to my comment about set_local_and_remote_host_info() in the
> first patch, since it's possible for us to allocate a lot of memory (if
> count is large) in hbac_save_list(), I think it makes sense to do
> allocations in this function in a tmp_ctx. Furthermore, unless I'm
> reading this wrong, the allocation made here does not get returned to
> the calling function, so proper memory management policy would be to
> clean it up here.
> We probably shouldn't be passing in a mem_ctx to hbac_save_list() at
> all. The function does not return anything up the stack, so we should
> contain its memory usage entirely within the function.
> As a note for the future, I don't see a purpose for passing mem_ctx to
> sysdb_delete_recursive() either. It returns no values that we are
> supposed to be responsible for, so having it attach to our memory
> context is a bad idea. It should attach to a new toplevel context
> instead, so valgrind would notice if we ever forget to free it properly.
>> Do we want/need a similar patch for master, too?
> I'm assuming you mean sssd-1-2 here. I don't think we're likely to hit
> situations where the sysdb can't be saved very often, so I'd suggest
> leaving it out of sssd-1-2 unless we get bugs reported on it.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
- --
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkyHkJAACgkQeiVVYja6o6PURACgpC0W+4z+CG87NTIXndv6AFtj
iasAn2/gdOdxzNhjzefPDXLDEQgsFFd3
=0qZe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----