On (27/07/15 12:13), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:04:33PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 07/26/2015 09:40 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 08:14:22PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2584
If you have any idea how to improve manual page, please, share it.
Hi,
please see my comments inline.
btw the patches work more or less fine -- great work, thanks.
The only functional error is the missing check for NULL res value if an entry is found by getpwnam() but not sysdb_getpwnam():
[root@client ~]# sss_override user-add root -n toor ldb: unable to dlopen /usr/lib64/ldb/modules/ldb/memberof.la : /usr/lib64/ldb/modules/ldb/memberof.la: invalid ELF header Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I think it was problem of accessing dom rather than res. Check is there.
Thanks.
After testing, I put the patches through Coverity. Here are the errors (some were already mentioned in the review):
I fixed all of them, hopefully, except:
Error: DEADCODE (CWE-561): [#def6] sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:302: equality_cond: Jumping to case "SYSDB_MEMBER_GROUP". sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:331: equality_cond: Jumping to case "SYSDB_MEMBER_GROUP". sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:296: equality_cond: Jumping to case "SYSDB_MEMBER_USER". sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:325: equality_cond: Jumping to case "SYSDB_MEMBER_USER". sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:324: between: When switching on "type", the value of "type" must be between 0 and 1. sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:324: dead_error_condition: The switch value "type" cannot reach the default case. sssd-1.13.1/src/tools/sss_override.c:337: dead_error_begin: Execution cannot reach this statement: "default:". # 335| strtype = "group"; # 336| break; # 337|-> default: # 338| DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Unsupported member type %d\n", type); # 339| ret = ERR_INTERNAL;
Yes, it is a dead code. But I think it's better to leave it in:
- Without default a compiler will produce warning since not all
SYSDB_MEMBER* are used. 2) Better to have it.
Do you think it may be better to use all SYSDB_MEMBER* instead of default branch? It will however also produce the coverity warning, I think.
I think this is OK and it's better to be paranoid and fail.
Just be prepared there will be a Coverity warning next Monday on the internal list :-) and when it arrives, mark the Coverity error as a false positive..
It's not a false positive. "false positive" means bug in static analysers. It should be marked as an intentional.
LS