Summary: NTF: Add protection against longDn notification for unadapted producer/consumer Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1114 Peer Reviewer(s): Anders W, Praveen, Lennart, Mathi 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 y Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> changeset 6aa5e3fb070779a0e1ba0f464e58398e8075da44 Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:57:48 +1000 NTF: Add notification to test unadapted consumer [#1114] Send additional notification with shortDn for notificationObject and notifyingObject but having extended SaNameT in AdditionalInfo, to test whether the unadapted consumer can receives this notification but can not retreive the AdditionalInfo changeset 2989559db7b7dd3ff6e08901ee26675a47d9876b Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:57:59 +1000 NTF: Add protection against longDn notification for unadapted producer/consumer [#1114] Currently if any unadapted longDn consumer receives notification having extended SaNameT in notification (notificationObject(s), notifyingObject(s), value type as LDAP_NAME) will be crashed The crash is due to invalid access to extended SaNameT The patch makes longDn notification invisible to unadapted consumer. Also if unadapted producer is going to send a longDn notification or unadapted consumer specifies longDn object for filter, the error code SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM is returned. Affected APIs: saNtfNotificationSend, saNtfNotificationReadNext, saNtfNotificationReadInitialize, saNtfNotificationSubscribe, saNtfPtrValGet, and notificationCallback. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_api.c | 380 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_util.c | 33 +++++- osaf/libs/common/ntfsv/ntfsv_enc_dec.c | 75 +++++++++---- osaf/libs/common/ntfsv/ntfsv_mem.c | 1 + tests/ntfsv/tet_longDnObject_notification.c | 5 + 5 files changed, 311 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- - ntftest 36 1, ntftest 31 1 - Run unadapted ntfread, ntfsubscribe (without #873) Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- - Unadapted consumer can not receive notification having longDn for notificationObject, notifyingObject - Unadapted consumer can not retrieve extended SaNameT in AdditionalInfo Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from reviewers Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
