On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:16 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look
> > > at the others.
> >
> > The last coverity/clang thing is a false positive, but I initialized
> > reply to NULL anyway, I expect now it will start complaining of possible
> > NULL dereference :-)
> >
> > Attached find patches that fixes all other issues (hopefully), one of
> > them simply dropped an entire function as it turned out I wasn't using
> > it.
> >
> > Simo.
> >
> > --
> > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>
> > From 4610b546cb37a150ebaee12559c19a17e422708c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com>
> > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:17:38 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH 05/15] Responders: Add support for socket activation
>
> ACK (visual at this point) with a question - do we want to check
> that the fd we received is a UNIX socket using sd_is_socket_unix()?
>
> The sd_listen_fds() manpage recommends that.
If they recommend it we should, yes.
OK, same as with the responder issue, I will prepare a fixup patch and
ask you to check it before squashing into your patches..
> > From 3755b157de1309f554a380e58c42c38dcd9cc5aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:33:39 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH 06/15] ConfDB: Add helper function to get
"subsections"
> >
> > The secrets database will have "subsections", ie sections that are in
the
> > "secrets" namespace and look like this: [secrets/<path>]
> >
> > This function allows to source any section under secrets/ or under any
> > arbitrary sub-path.
> >
> > Related:
> >
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2913
[...]
> > +int confdb_get_sub_sections(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> > + struct confdb_ctx *cdb,
> > + const char *section,
> > + char ***sections,
> > + int *num_sections)
> > +{
> > + TALLOC_CTX *tmp_ctx = NULL;
> > + char *secdn;
> > + struct ldb_dn *base = NULL;
> > + struct ldb_result *res = NULL;
> > + static const char *attrs[] = {"cn", NULL};
> > + char **names;
> > + int base_comp_num;
> > + int num;
> > + int i;
>
> Can you use size_t here so that clang doesn't complain about "comparison
> of integers of different signs: 'int' and 'unsigned int'" in
the for
> loop below?
meh, ok :-)
Trivial, I can also fix this locally and ask you if it's OK to squash.
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + tmp_ctx = talloc_new(mem_ctx);
> > + if (tmp_ctx == NULL) {
> > + return ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = parse_section(tmp_ctx, section, &secdn, NULL);
> > + if (ret != EOK) {
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + base = ldb_dn_new(tmp_ctx, cdb->ldb, secdn);
> > + if (base == NULL) {
> > + ret = ENOMEM;
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + base_comp_num = ldb_dn_get_comp_num(base);
> > +
> > + ret = ldb_search(cdb->ldb, tmp_ctx, &res, base, LDB_SCOPE_SUBTREE,
> > + attrs, NULL);
> > + if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) {
> > + ret = EIO;
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + names = talloc_zero_array(tmp_ctx, char *, res->count + 1);
> > + if (names == NULL) {
> > + ret = ENOMEM;
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (num = 0, i = 0; i < res->count; i++) {
> > + const struct ldb_val *val;
> > + char *name;
> > + int n;
> > + int j;
>
> Every time I see variables declared in a scope in C except loop control
> variables I think "This should be a static function of its own" :-)
Should it be in this case ? </lazy>
Not sure, I'll make up my mind when I fix the other trivial issues.
[...]
> > From aa6203a0a6cb1f3ac60428887e77fe176489c3e0 Mon Sep 17
00:00:00 2001
> > From: Christian Heimes <cheimes(a)redhat.com>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:26:22 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH 08/15] Secrets: m4 macros for jansson and http-parser
> >
> > Prepares autoconf for the new Secrets Provider dependencies
> >
> > Related:
> >
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2913
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > +PKG_CHECK_MODULES([HTTP_PARSER], [http_parser], [found_http_parser=yes],
[found_http_parser=no])
>
> There is no pkgconfig for http-parser-devel, so it seems to be this line
> is redundant.
>
> Otherwise ACK.
I wonder why this is not failing then ?
Because we find the library using the next AC_CHECK_LIB call. Again, I
will fixup this locally and send a branch for review later.