On 08/21/2013 04:47 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 08/21/2013 02:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27:38AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (21/08/13 09:50), Pavel Březina wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2013 09:56 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>> +static void sss_mc_save_corrupted(struct sss_mc_ctx *mc_ctx)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int err;
>>>> + int fd = -1;
>>>> + ssize_t written;
>>>> + char *file = NULL;
>>>> + TALLOC_CTX *tmp_ctx;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (mc_ctx == NULL) {
>>>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC,
>>>> + ("Cannot store uninitialized cache. Nothing to
>>>> do.\n"));
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + tmp_ctx = talloc_new(NULL);
>>>> + if (tmp_ctx == NULL) {
>>>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, ("Out of memory.\n"));
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + file = talloc_asprintf(tmp_ctx, "%s_%s",
>>>> + mc_ctx->file, "corrupted");
>>>> + if (file == NULL) {
>>>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, ("Out of memory.\n"));
>>>> + goto done;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* We will always store only the last problematic cache state */
>>>> + fd = creat(file, 0600);
>>>> + if (fd == -1) {
>>>> + err = errno;
>>>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
>>>> + ("Failed to open file '%s' [%d]: %s\n",
>>>> + file, err, strerror(err)));
>>>> + goto done;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + written = write(fd, mc_ctx->mmap_base, mc_ctx->mmap_size);
>>>
>>> Shouldn't sss_atomic_write_s() be used?
sss_atomic_write_s is probably better. I though that the function
is only useful for non-blocking sockets, but after reading it's code I
see it is good to use it here too.
>>>> + if (written != mc_ctx->mmap_size) {
>>>> + if (written == -1) {
>>>> + err = errno;
>>>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
>>>> + ("write() failed [%d]: %s\n", err,
strerror(err)));
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
>>>> + ("write() returned %zd (expected (%zd))\n",
>>>> + written, mc_ctx->mmap_size));
>>>> + }
>>>> + goto done;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I think the file should be unlinked in case of error.
Ok. I added unlink() call for the case if write returns -1. If the
file was only partially written (for whatever reason) it can still
hold some useful information, so I would prefer to keep it.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + sss_log(SSS_LOG_NOTICE,
>>>> + "Stored copy of corrupted mmap cache in file
'%s\n'",
>>>> file);
>>>> +done:
>>>> + if (fd != -1) {
>>>> + close(fd);
>>>> + }
>>>> + talloc_free(tmp_ctx);
>>>> +}
>>
>> I think that function sss_mc_save_corrupted will never be called with
>> patches
>> from thread "[PATCHES] mmap_cache: Skip records which doesn't have
>> same hash"
>>
>> It is very likely that it is a dead code. I would prefer to ignore this
>> nitpicks, because patches have already been pushed.
>>
>> LS
>
> No, sorry, I would prefer to always fix and improve code. At the very
> least, existing code acts as a reference when developing new code.
Since the original patch was already pushed, this one just adds the
requested changes.
Thanks
Michal
Since this was not yet pushed I did one more cosmetic change. I think
calling the close() before unlink() is more readable. If the fd != -1 we
already know that we want to close it, so the conditional check for
unlink() just makes noise before it. And this order is probably more
natural for most cases.
Michal