On (16/04/14 11:12), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:02:15AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 09:34:04AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > On (17/03/14 07:53), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >On (15/03/14 17:57), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >>On (12/11/13 11:15), Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >>>On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:03 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:23 +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> > Updated patches are attached.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is not the right way to fix the failure.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That library *knowingly* has missing symbols because it is an
internal
> > >>>> library.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You need to build or link to an outer program that have only
the
> > >>>> necessary symbols you know are going to be available.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In this case those symbols are in libsss_krb5.so, so all you
should nee
> > >>>> to do is to have this in tests:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> + { "libsss_krb5_common.so", {
LIBPFX"libdlopen_test_providers.so",
> > >>>> +
LIBPFX"libsss_krb5_common.so",
> > >>>> + LIBPFX"libsss_krb5.so",
> > >>>> + NULL } },
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adding c files to librraies to "make them pass" the
dl-open test is
> > >>>> wrong in 99% of the cases. you are just making the test pass
not testing
> > >>>> that the libraries have the right dependencies. In particular
for
> > >>>> internal modules you really need to understand the hierarchy of
the
> > >>>> modules and link in the test all the necessary dependencies
before
> > >>>> thinking of adding any file to the module itself.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In this case what you did was to duplicate symblos in the
resulting Text
> > >>>> file, and that can potentially cause very serious consequencies
if any
> > >>>> of those symbols is a static symbols that is meant to have a
share de
> > >>>> value all code rely on.
> > >>>
> > >>>Oh let me add.
> > >>>I did my check very quickly so it is possible that my version is not
the
> > >>>final correct approach, I was just describing how you should pass
in
> > >>>multiple libs for dependency.
> > >>>
> > >>>It is possible that you need those symbols directly in
> > >>>libsss_krb5_common.so, but if that is actually the case, then it
means
> > >>>you have to remove those symbols from libsss_krb5.so and add them
> > >>>libsss_krb5_common.so as dependency for libsss_krb5.so in makefile
and
> > >>>tests. This may even require moving functions from one file to
another
> > >>>in the extreme case.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>zombie patches are returning :-)
> > >>
> > >>I hope all commit messages are self descripting.
> > >>
> > >>They were lot of changes in Makefile.am
> > >>sh-4.2$ git diff --stat HEAD~6..HEAD Makefile.am
> > >> Makefile.am | 99
+++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------
> > >> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >>LS
> > >
> > >>From 457eaee99fb5afba5f6dd3752efcf78ce19d723c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > >>From: Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
> > >>Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:29:25 +0100
> > >>Subject: [PATCH 5/6] BUILD: Move duplicated files from providers to
> > >> libsss_ldap_common.so
> > >>
> > >
> > >self-NACK
> > >
> > >make distcheck fails with 5th patch.
> > >
> > Interdiff for 5th patch:
> >
> > diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
> > index 2d0a295..a65369b 100644
> > --- a/Makefile.am
> > +++ b/Makefile.am
> > @@ -1742,6 +1742,10 @@ endif
> > # Plugin Libraries #
> > ####################
> >
> > +# libsss_krb5_common must be installed before libsss_ldap_common
> > +# because libtool tries to relink libsss_ldap_common when installing
> > +# libsss_ldap_common and therefore make distcheck fails
> > +pkglib_LTLIBRARIES += libsss_krb5_common.la
> > pkglib_LTLIBRARIES += libsss_ldap_common.la
> > libsss_ldap_common_la_SOURCES = \
> > src/providers/ldap/ldap_id.c \
> > @@ -1778,6 +1782,8 @@ libsss_ldap_common_la_SOURCES = \
> > src/providers/ldap/sdap.c \
> > src/util/user_info_msg.c \
> > src/util/sss_ldap.c
> > libsss_ldap_common_la_LIBADD = \
> > $(KRB5_LIBS) \
> > libsss_krb5_common.la \
> > @@ -1800,11 +1806,7 @@ libsss_ldap_common_la_SOURCES += \
> > src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_autofs.c
> > endif
> >
> > libsss_ldap_common_la_CFLAGS = \
> > $(KRB5_CFLAGS)
> >
> >
> > -pkglib_LTLIBRARIES += libsss_krb5_common.la
> > libsss_krb5_common_la_SOURCES = \
> > src/providers/krb5/krb5_utils.c \
> > src/providers/krb5/krb5_become_user.c \
> >
> > Updated patches are attached
> >
> > LS
>
> Sorry for the delay in reviewing the packages.
>
> I think these packages are good and I'd like to ACK them.
>
> The testing consisted of:
> * visual inspection of the patches. The commit messages help,
> thanks!
> * applying the dlopen-test patch on master. The dlopen test then
> didn't pass. After aplying the other patches, the dlopen test
> passed as well.
> * starting IPA, AD and LDAP (with and without ID mapping to be sure)
> went fine
Pushed all patches to master in:
a25942bc2f6ac9b3b2817ede35fa2b445373c6e4
cc1c033c34b5f816b633d27a21aefbf811a7cf72
6261893e00bd14fdd192ffc9a1379cb9c647d326
12805da52a93c268290cec7b8fbbdbd4ea8abc3e
7fc27c7a3ccbb6aecb8cf4a4a5f91962028cb897
717008c8c3f29f3a1a77266cc72a6cfa616bf295
Could we push Benjamin's patch to 1.11 branch?
LS