On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 19:58 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (20/04/16 17:21), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >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.
>
> We have PKG_CHECK_MODULES and then fallback to AC_CHECK_LIB AC_CHECK_HEADER
> on many places. It's not a problem from my POV.
>
> If we would like to simplify it. We could get rid of fallback detection on many
> places. And http_parser can provide pkgconfig file in future.
>
> I would prefer to be "kind of consistent" in detection.
> But I do not insist on it.
I am not sure if you arguing to keep the checks as they are in my patch
or to remove the pkgconfig based check :)
Simo.
Given that Lukas says "http_parser can provide pkgconfig in future", I
read his mail as a preference to keep the pkg-check test. And actually I
agree, it doesn't hurt, let's keep it in.