[SSSD] [PATCH] NSS: Handle ENOENT when doing initgroups by UPN
Lukas Slebodnik
lslebodn at redhat.com
Wed Mar 11 17:04:20 UTC 2015
On (11/03/15 18:02), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>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
>
You did not test each patch separatelly.
You tested only a whole patchset.
LS
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list