[SSSD] [PATCH] GPO: Fix incorrect strerror on GPO access denial
Jakub Hrozek
jhrozek at redhat.com
Tue Jun 23 12:41:53 UTC 2015
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 01:16:30PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (23/06/15 10:51), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:43:31AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> On (23/06/15 10:01), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 06:20:34PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> >> On (11/06/15 10:44), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> >> >On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 16:19 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> >> >> On (11/06/15 09:35), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 09:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> >> >> > > We're attempting to use strerror() to print the result from
> >> >> >> > > ad_gpo_access_check(), but that function returns an extended SSSD
> >> >> >> > > errno.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > This resulted in "Unknown Error" being printed to the logs.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And now with the patch attached...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > From 108c6e9f47560a53d2d044c0399e66528615d73d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> >> >> >> > 2001
> >> >> >> > From: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com>
> >> >> >> > Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:17:02 -0400
> >> >> >> > Subject: [PATCH] GPO: Fix incorrect strerror on GPO access denial
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We're attempting to use strerror() to print the result from
> >> >> >> > ad_gpo_access_check(), but that function returns an extended SSSD
> >> >> >> > errno
> >> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >> > src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c | 2 +-
> >> >> >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > diff --git a/src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c b/src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c
> >> >> >> > index
> >> >> >> > 4e7afb12a73313ece00c6ffdd24cfad1b73a831d..995bd083b27710814350bef8d1e43b874d5a8a27
> >> >> >> > 100644
> >> >> >> > --- a/src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c
> >> >> >> > +++ b/src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c
> >> >> >> > @@ -1446,11 +1446,11 @@ ad_gpo_perform_hbac_processing(TALLOC_CTX
> >> >> >> > *mem_ctx,
> >> >> >> > deny_size);
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > if (ret != EOK) {
> >> >> >> > DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE,
> >> >> >> > "GPO access check failed: [%d](%s)\n",
> >> >> >> > - ret, strerror(ret));
> >> >> >> > + ret, sss_strerror(ret));
> >> >> >> > goto done;
> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You can also replace strerror on line 1152 after
> >> >> >> ad_gpo_extract_policy_setting
> >> >> >> 1178 after
> >> >> >> ad_gpo_extract_policy_setting
> >> >> >> 1673 after
> >> >> >> sdap_id_op_connect_recv
> >> >> >> 1995 after
> >> >> >> ad_gpo_filter_gpos_by_cse_guid
> >> >> >> 2044 after
> >> >> >> sysdb_gpo_delete_gpo_result_object
> >> >> >> 2136 after
> >> >> >> sysdb_gpo_get_gpo_by_guid
> >> >> >> 4037 after
> >> >> >> ad_gpo_parse_gpo_child_response
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But strerror can be replaced on all places with sss_strerror
> >> >> >> because in value is not within sssd error code range then strerror is
> >> >> >> called.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >To be clear, is this a Nack? I was really only trying to address a
> >> >> >specific message that was proving to be misleading. If you really want
> >> >> >me to replace all instances of strerror(), that's a bigger effort.
> >> >> I didn't want to replace on all places. Michal has patch for this IIRC.
> >> >> just in the src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c. I've already provided lines :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Or should we push 6 one-liners :-) (without ACK)
> >> >>
> >> >> LS
> >> >
> >> >I think we can push this one since it's already written, then continue
> >> >with Michal's patch (read=ACK)
> >> >
> >> Michal has different use case.
> >> He want t use sss_strerror on all places and fail with
> >> compile time error incase of using "strerror"
> >>
> >> >btw what is blocking the mass-conversion to sss_strerror?
> >> Nothing.
> >> Michal just need to finish his job.
> >>
> >> If Stephen does not have a time I can update patch.
> >> I provided exact lines which need to be changed.
> >
> >Sure, if you have time, fix the other occurences in GPO atop Stephen's
> >patch and I'll push both.
> The commit message would be the same for both patches.
> I just updated Stephen's patch and added my signoff.
>
> LS
ACK thanks for taking care of it.
CI: http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/18/13/summary.html
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list