On 03/11/2015 03:46 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
@@ -4062,29 +4062,39 @@ static int nss_cmd_initgroups_search(struct
nss_dom_ctx *dctx)
if (cmdctx->name_is_upn) {
ret = sysdb_search_user_by_upn(cmdctx, dom, name, user_attrs, &msg);
- if (ret != EOK && ret != ENOENT) {
+ if (ret == EOK) {
+ sysdb_name = ldb_msg_find_attr_as_string(msg, SYSDB_NAME, NULL);
+ if (sysdb_name == NULL) {
+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE,
+ "Sysdb entry does not have a name.\n");
+ return EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ ret = sysdb_initgroups(cmdctx, dom, sysdb_name, &dctx->res);
+ if (ret == EOK && DOM_HAS_VIEWS(dom)) {
+ for (c = 0; c < dctx->res->count; c++) {
+ ret = sysdb_add_overrides_to_object(dom,
dctx->res->msgs[c],
+ NULL, NULL);
+ if (ret != EOK) {
+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE,
+ "sysdb_add_overrides_to_object failed.\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ } else if (ret != ENOENT) {
DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "sysdb_search_user_by_upn
failed.\n");
return ret;
- }
-
- sysdb_name = ldb_msg_find_attr_as_string(msg, SYSDB_NAME, NULL);
- if (sysdb_name == NULL) {
- DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE,
- "Sysdb entry does not have a name.\n");
- return EINVAL;
- }
-
- ret = sysdb_initgroups(cmdctx, dom, sysdb_name, &dctx->res);
- if (ret == EOK && DOM_HAS_VIEWS(dom)) {
- for (c = 0; c < dctx->res->count; c++) {
- ret = sysdb_add_overrides_to_object(dom, dctx->res->msgs[c],
- NULL, NULL);
- if (ret != EOK) {
- DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE,
- "sysdb_add_overrides_to_object failed.\n");
- return ret;
- }
+ } else {
+ dctx->res = talloc_zero(cmdctx, struct ldb_result);
+ if (dctx->res == NULL) {
+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "talloc_zero failed.\n");
+ return ENOMEM;
}
+
+ dctx->res->count = 0;
+ dctx->res->msgs = NULL;
+ ret = EOK;
}
} else {
ret = sysdb_initgroups_with_views(cmdctx, dom, name, &dctx->res);
-- 2.1.0
Thanks for the patches.
All patches LGTM.
I've tested that tests fail if the forth patch is not applied. I also
wrote simple program to reproduce the segfault and after applying the
4th patch I'm no longer able to reproduce the bug.
I have only one style nitpick - would it make more sense to test
explicitly for 'ret == ENOENT' and handle the other cases in else branch?
If you don't agree then ignore then comment and push the patches (ACK to
all).
Thanks!
ci passed:
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/9/46/summary.html