[SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: add missing header files

Pavel Reichl preichl at redhat.com
Tue Oct 13 11:43:40 UTC 2015



On 10/13/2015 01:28 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (13/10/15 12:36), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>> On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>> On (12/10/15 14:06), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On (12/10/15 13:05), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 07:32 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On (11/10/15 23:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> while messing around with some code analyses tool I noticed that some header files are not including directly header files which they use and thus are dependent on being included in particular order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see simple patch attached that fixes some of such files (but definitely not all).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >From 12c273af1c8ffe727efc526c9e993240904bcbf1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pavel Reichl <reichl.pavel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:29:44 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] SDAP: add missing header files
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h       | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> src/providers/ldap/sdap_autofs.h     | 6 ++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> src/providers/ldap/sdap_id_op.h      | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> src/providers/ldap/sdap_sudo.h       | 6 ++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> src/providers/ldap/sdap_users.h      | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 5fbddd7087dc65ab8bd1df5fb57492d2fc26d0bb..1848af5de19796c8287117b9afe5c6d3e1a248ec 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> #include "config.h"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#include <talloc.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#include "util/util.h"
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> util.h already includes talloc.h.
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you explain why do we need to include both of them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for noticing that. This seems to be quite common in our code base:
>>>>>>>>>> git grep -l 'util.h' -- '*.[ch]' | xargs grep 'talloc.h' | wc -l
>>>>>>>>>> 88
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's glitch in the patch nonetheless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> enum pwexpire {
>>>>>>>>>>>>      PWEXPIRE_NONE = 0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>      PWEXPIRE_LDAP_PASSWORD_POLICY,
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 2da38f988913fa0d6f252697925e50e05eb794a6..7d4ff82c5e003ffbd14aca76f321a8a0fc41b3d6 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,12 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>> #ifndef _SDAP_ASYNC_ENUM_H_
>>>>>>>>>>>> #define _SDAP_ASYNC_ENUM_H_
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#include "config.h"
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#include <talloc.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#include "util/util.h"
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> util.h already includes config.h and talloc.h.
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you explain why we need to include all mentioned header files?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same as above. Thanks for noticing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> git grep -l 'util.h' -- '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -l 'talloc.h' | xargs grep 'config.h' | wc -l
>>>>>>>>>> 23
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please see updated patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry but I still miss an explanation why do we need to include these
>>>>>>>>> header files. You just updated patches but the explanation is neither in mail
>>>>>>>>> nor in commit message.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In first mail I wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   I noticed that some header files are not including directly header files which they use and thus are dependent on being included in particular order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we have header file A that uses declarations from other header file B and
>>>>>>>> B is not directly included from A then compilation of source file that
>>>>>>>> includes header file A will fail unless header file B is included before
>>>>>>>> header A. This is not desired behavior. I don't think this is a big problem
>>>>>>>> and I don't think we should spent time actively fixing this. Still I hit this
>>>>>>>> problem and I fixed it in the files that failed for me. I don't see any
>>>>>>>> reason why not to merge such improvements. Do you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not stupid I know why we need to include missing header file.
>>>>>> I'm sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's not cleaner which header file need to be included and why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I'll add explanation to commit messages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So could you be more concreate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e.g.: We need to include talloc.h because talloc memory context are used in
>>>>>>> header file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW the main problem with including util.h is that include many header files,
>>>>>>> which is not necessary in many cases. And header files should not include
>>>>>>> unnecessary header files. It significantly slow down compilation on slow
>>>>>>> processors (arm development boards e.g. raspberry pi, ...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I agree, so if header file is missing just declaration of errno_t then including just 'util/util_errors.h' is fine with you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW should every header file contain as first header file 'config.h'?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it is required then it should be included otherwise no.
>>>>> ATM we do not have any compilation warnings caused by missing header files.
>>>>> So could you explain why we need to include them? It would make sense
>>>>
>>>> In my first post I wrote that I was playing around with some code analysis tool. It didn't work because header files didn't include necessary header files on their own. In latter discussion We both agreed this is not optimal.
>>>>
>>> You didn't mentioned which tool.
>>> So it cannot be verified.
>>
>> If the header file contains errno_t or TALLOC_CTX and no include or forward
>> declaration what so ever what's there to verify? But OK, I think I see your
>> point now. I assume I could write a dummy.c and include the offending headers
>> and show you the compiler errors.
>>
>>>
>>>>> to do it as part of refactoring.
>>>>> But there are higher priority things which could be done instead.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are - I already wrote the same myself. This patch was just by-product of my messing around. I decided to share it as I thought it improves SSSD a tiny bit. If you don't think it improves SSSD at all then we can drop it.
>>>>
>>> The patch would make sense if we could prevent such problems in future.
>>> In another words: The tesst would be part of CI script.
>>> Otherwise such "potential problems" can be created in future.
>>
>> Generally the fact that you can't prevent something from happening in future should not be a block for fixing it now.
>>
> It is the same use-case as with trailing whitespace.
> It's error-prone to rely on reviewer. If something is possible to automate then
> it should be automated. It does not make a sense to send patches every week
> which fixes triling whitespaces.

Yes, it's the same use-case as with trailing whitespace. I don't think that the test was worth the effort.
"Patches every week" - I don't think this is the case - AFAIR the trailing spaces I fixed were old months and were quite few.

>
> You mentioned that you played with code analysis tool. So you didn't check
> all files manually. This is exactly the purpose of static analyzers.

Static analyzer just didn't work on those files (just the files I randomly picked) as it could not compile them.

> To do boring stuff instead of people. Could you explain why it connot
> be incorporated to the our CI script? or does it mean that you do not

It didn't analyzed header file dependencies (the tool analyzed cyclomatic complexity). If you want test for that then I suppose you can do something like generate a source file for every header file and make the source file to include the header file 
then try to compile it and watch for relevant errors.

> want to improve code quality of sssd?
Right, that's why I'm sending such patches at first place.


>
> 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