On 07/25/2016 12:55 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 03:03 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 03:00:14PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:20:16PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > > > On 07/18/2016 03:23 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:39:40AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > > > > > From 6af064012844f3e61b9fa5b502bebe44e4620ffd Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:40:16 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/7] rdp: add ability to forward reply to
the
> > > > > > client request
> > > > >
> > > > > LGTM, but I didn't test yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > > From 2ad0b97f9e435ac5f57caf37479304c16d0424c9 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:29:39 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/7] sbus: add sbus_request_reply_error()
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, but what is the plan on the other calls? I wouldn't like
us to end
> > > > > up with two competing implementations of the same (again)..
> > > >
> > > > It is sometimes desirable to pass DBusError as an argument but in
> > > > much more
> > > > cases it is simpler to just use this call. The plan is to change the
> > > > calls
> > > > where it is desirable, I'll send separate patch later for this.
Here I
> > > > changed it only for sssctl related code.
> > > >
> > > > > > From 0f508095599b3e04573a21a600b4f42e172cc304 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:35:59 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/7] sbus: add utility function to
simplify
> > > > > > message and reply
> > > > > > handling
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch adds the ability to hook DBusMessage to a talloc
context
> > > > > > to remove the need of calling dbus_message_unref(). It also
provides
> > > > > > an automatical way to detect error in a reply so the caller
does
> > > > > > not need to parse it manually and the whole code around
DBusError
> > > > > > can be avoided.
> > > > >
> > > > > One code readability nitpick..
> > > > >
> > > > > > +errno_t sbus_check_reply(DBusMessage *reply)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + dbus_bool_t bret;
> > > > > > + DBusError error;
> > > > > > + errno_t ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + dbus_error_init(&error);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + switch (dbus_message_get_type(reply)) {
> > > > > > + case DBUS_MESSAGE_TYPE_METHOD_RETURN:
> > > > > > + ret = EOK;
> > > > > > + goto done;
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you use break in the non-failure cases? I would say this
would be
> > > > > more readable..
> > > >
> > > > Done.
> > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + case DBUS_MESSAGE_TYPE_ERROR:
> > > > > > + bret = dbus_set_error_from_message(&error,
reply);
> > > > > > + if (bret == false) {
> > > > > > + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Unable to
read error from
> > > > > > message\n");
> > > > > > + ret = EIO;
> > > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "D-Bus error [%s]:
%s\n",
> > > > > > + error.name, (error.message == NULL ?
"(null)" :
> > > > > > error.message));
> > > > > > + ret = sbus_error_to_errno(&error);
> > > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > > + default:
> > > > > > + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Unexpected D-Bus
message
> > > > > > type?\n");
> > > > > > + ret = ERR_INTERNAL;
> > > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +done:
> > > > > > + dbus_error_free(&error);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > The rest looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > > From 93b4f2e9077f1959d563ba8e4d3f41a9764cc8c6 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:03:38 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 4/7] sssctl: use talloc with sifp
> > > > >
> > > > > LGTM
> > > > >
> > > > > > From 33f5fd436a0fc3d5d1eac970b66c174bb2da6189 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:58:37 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 5/7] failover: mark subdomain service with
sd_ prefix
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you test the failover with subdomain? I wonder if we rely on
the
> > > > > service name somewhere, but I can't remember.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. The name is generated and stored in service context. We do not
> > > > rely on
> > > > precise name anywhere, but in these patches... it's not a nice
thing
> > > > to do
> > > > but I didn't come up with anything better.
> > > >
> > > > > But more importantly, also related to the next patch, you noted
we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > actually use the GC service for AD subdomains, if that's
true
> > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > we remove it completely?
> > > >
> > > > We use it with IPA provider. But it is doable to remove it from AD
> > > > provider
> > > > completely, but I didn't want to touch fo service code with
those
> > > > patches.
> > > >
> > > > > > From e4c6e829a1942290d441cec618d477782bbe4c08 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:56:13 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 6/7] ssctl: print active server and server
list
> > > > > > + count = 0;
> > > > > > + DLIST_FOR_EACH(svc, be_ctx->be_fo->svcs) {
> > > > > > + /* Drop each sd_gc_* since this service is not
used with
> > > > > > AD at all,
> > > > > > + * we only connect to AD_GC for global catalog.
*/
> > > > > > + if (strncasecmp(svc->name, "sd_gc_",
strlen("sd_gc_")) ==
> > > > > > 0) {
> > > > > > + continue;
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked this in the previous patch, shouldn't we drop the
GC
> > > > > service if
> > > > > it's not used? Also, what does "we only connect to
AD_GC for global
> > > > > catalog." mean?
> > > >
> > > > There is service called AD_GC. We resolve this service when we want
to
> > > > connect to GC whether we search in subdomain or not when using AD
> > > > provider.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /* Drop all subdomain services for different
domain. */
> > > > > > + if (strncasecmp(svc->name, "sd_",
strlen("sd_")) == 0) {
> > > > > > + if (!IS_SUBDOMAIN(domain)) {
> > > > > > + continue;
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would we see sd_ services for non-subdomin?
> > > >
> > > > Because the failover context is shared across all domains in
> > > > backend, so
> > > > there's always everything.
> > > >
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (strcasecmp(svc->name, fo_svc_name) !=
0) {
> > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (IS_SUBDOMAIN(domain)) {
> > > > > > + /* Drop AD since we connect to
subdomain.com
for
> > > > > > LDAP. */
> > > > > > + if (strcasecmp(svc->name, "AD")
== 0) {
> > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > > From e74a27309b8a49c0f524bb9d3d66385dd1d33bc1 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
<pbrezina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:49:37 +0200
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 7/7] sifp: fix coverity warning
> > > > >
> > > > > ACK
> > > >
> > > > New patches attached.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, one more question and I'm not sure if failover is at fault
here..I
> > > tested on an IPA server connected to an AD domain where I switched off
> > > one of the DCs. Now the domain reports like this:
> > >
> > > $ sudo sssctl domain-status subdom.win.trust.test
> > > Online status: Offline
> > >
> > > Active servers:
> > > AD Domain Controller: child.subdom.win.trust.test
> > > IPA: unidirect.ipa.test
> > >
> > > Discovered AD Domain Controller servers:
> > > - child.subdom.win.trust.test
> > >
> > > Discovered IPA servers:
> > > - unidirect.ipa.test
> > >
> > > So sssctl correctly reports the domain is offline, but still prints an
> > > active server..why?
> >
> > also, there is a warning:
> > Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
> > sssd-1.14.1/src/providers/data_provider/dp_iface_failover.c:
> > scope_hint: In function 'dp_failover_list_services'
> > sssd-1.14.1/src/providers/data_provider/dp_iface_failover.c:248:8:
> > warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > # if (ret != EOK) {
> > # ^
> > # 246| }
> > # 247|
> > # 248|-> if (ret != EOK) {
> > # 249| DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Unable to create service
> > list [%d]: %s\n",
> > # 250| ret, sss_strerror(ret));
>
> I switched to be_fo_get_active_server_name() which I didn't see before.
> It seems alright now. Thanks for review. New patches are attached.
Bump.