On (23/10/15 10:22), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:50:07AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 10:00 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >the attached patches are my proposal to fix
> >https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2829
> >
> >I haven't tested them past make check yet, because I'm not sure I like
> >them myself :) but at the same time I can't see a better way to keep
> >track of the servers and let callers set state of servers.
> >
> >The most ugly thing so far IMO is the fo_internal_owner member. I would
> >prefer to instead have a fo_server_wrap structure that would be used for
> >the server_list, but I didn't want to do a large change before we agree
> >the refcount is a good idea at all.
>
> It is not a good idea, but it is a way to go as we agreed on the call.
>
> >The other ugly side-effect is that we need to be sure that nobody calls
> >talloc_free on the fo_server structure. Instead, only the parent context
> >can be freed (that's also what the first patch is about).
>
> Another reason to do failover refactoring soon.
>
> Ack to the patches.
Thank you, I squashed the patch that reproduces the error to the patch
that fixes the bug, because otherwise the test would fail in CI and
pushed the patches to master:
* 10c07e188323a2f9824b5e34379f3b1a9b37759e
* 4a4af8e1b6a9bab7c7a34d86055a400376e3829e
* 63af9215ea9114062fd87003161e6b5982bf9b1f
sssd-1-13:
* c532290fb1a85a63c3bc9ef95ba7d6248f0e94c1
* 383bdbe8d40cba2d0848b2256716358c7f8e8f2d
* 5d485ce42a4d56581d44c7224e78083a4ff1e81b
LS