Good test program that special malloc! Ack Mathi. ----- [email protected] wrote:
> Summary: clm: Ensure SaNameT strings are NUL-terminated [#1056] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1056 > Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.5.x, default(4.6) > Development branch: default > > -------------------------------- > 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 2886df6251953185dea87d5b121ddfe740154010 > Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:51:24 +0200 > > clm: Ensure SaNameT strings are NUL-terminated [#1056] > > CLM uses the SaNameT structure for output parameters (in various > data > structures), but it did not guarantee that the string inside the > SaNameT > structure was NUL-terminated. This meant that these SaNameT > structures could > not safely be read using the saAisNameBorrow() function. > > Code has been added to the clm agent to ensure proper NUL termination > in > SaNameT structures. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/clma/clma_api.c | 3 +++ > osaf/libs/common/clmsv/clmsv_enc_dec.c | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Use CLM interfaces that produce SaNameT as output. In order to trigger > the bug > I used a special malloc() function that fills the allocated memory > with non-zero > bytes. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > SaNameT output from CLM shall contain NUL-terminated strings. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Mathi > > > 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
