[SSSD] [PATCH] NSS: Handle ENOENT when doing initgroups by UPN
Pavel Reichl
preichl at redhat.com
Wed Mar 11 17:02:01 UTC 2015
On 03/11/2015 05:04 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (11/03/15 16:48), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 04:30:52PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> 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
>> I'm not sure if I understood what you meant, but check the attached
>> patches.
>>
>> Normally I prefer:
>> if (ret == ENOENT) {
>> /* handle ENOENT */
>> } else if (ret != EOK) {
>> /* Error! *//
>> }
>>
>> /* Let's not put EOK into else and avoid extra indentation */
>>
>> But here the EOK must be in an else branch, I think.
I think this version looks a little better, but I'm fine with both version.
So ACK from me.
> >From c0daf41e1c9ca1e8331dc9e5e7098e7862fd8b7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com>
>> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:59:39 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Add unit tests for initgroups
>>
> This patch should be applied as the last one (and not 3rd)
> otherwise the test nss-srv-tests fails and our CI would complain.
How would CI complain? It seems OK to me:
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/9/47/summary.html
>
> LS
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list