Summary: cpa: correct peer msg_fmt_ver in cpa_mds_enc function [#745] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #745 Peer Reviewer(s): Nagu Pull request to: Affected branch(es): 4.4 & default Development branch: default
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services n OpenSAF services y Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset ba3f4bb07173ad13fffb61fb32b119025d5d3b74 Author: A V Mahesh <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:03:17 +0530 cpa: correct peer msg_fmt_ver in cpa_mds_enc function [#745] This issue occurs only in case of 32bit CPA application communicating to 64bit CPND. If 64bit CPA application communicating to 64bit CPND , mds_enc_flat is used and in case of 32bit CPA application communicating to 64bit CPND mds_enc is used. The EDU (cpsv_edu.c) is getting commonly used by cpa--->cpnd and cpnd----->cpd & cpd----->cpnd . Currently in cpa_mds_enc() the default peer version ( edu_hdl->to_version) is getting send to EDU functions , instead of correct peer version (o_msg_fmt_ver) , because of that in EDU functions the attribute is NOT encoded and sent form32bit CPA application, but 64bit CPND is trying to decode the attribute that is why we are seeing segmentation fault in CPND. Changed m_NCS_EDU_EXEC to m_NCS_EDU_VER_EXEC to update correct peer msg_fmt_ver of edu_hdl In cpa_mds_enc(). Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/agents/saf/cpa/cpa_api.c | 2 +- osaf/libs/agents/saf/cpa/cpa_mds.c | 4 ++-- osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpsv_evt.h | 1 + osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_evt.c | 1 + 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Run a 32bit cpa application on 64bit Opensaf. The application does the following: 1) Open an asynchronous checkpoint 2) Set the retention duration of the checkpoint The cpa application will continuously receives ERR_TIMEOUT. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Set the retention duration of the checkpoint should return Success Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack for Reviewer Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
