Summary: IMM: saImmOmAdminOwnerClear should only be allowed for root users [#1053] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1053 Peer Reviewer(s): Neel, Zoran, HansF Pull request to: Affected branch(es): 4.5; default(4.6) Development branch:
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 490ab6ebfdbefb8503123dd87d9bb2b824f7af67 Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:30:35 +0200 IMM: saImmOmAdminOwnerClear should only be allowed for root users [#1053] The local immnd enforces access control for saImmOmAdminOwnerClear if access-control is enabled. In addition, a minor change of code is done for immnd_fevs_local_checks. The fix for ticket #938, changeset 5648:bc8d57d94f9f added a parameter 'sinfo' to immnd_fevs_local_checks. This is a pointer parameter and it turns out that the sinfo struct is not available to all contexts where immnd_fevs_local_checks is invoked. This caused coverity complaints and these where justified because the code in immnd_fevs_local_checks using sinfo did not guard for NULL. Instead of adding such code, this patch changes the parameter to 'uid_t uid'. The uid is what is actually used in this function. It will be set to zero for cases where the message is generated internally by the local IMMND. This matches the semantics of the parameter. Even if the IMMNDs are not executing as root, they need the root priviliges enforced by the IMM access control. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Neel. Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 n n 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
