Summary: NTF: Add protection against longDn notification for unadapted 
producer/consumer V2
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1114
Peer Reviewer(s): Anders W, Praveen, Lennart, Mathi
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): 4.5
Development branch: default (4.6)

--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
Changes in V2:
- Add description for README
- saNtfDispatch returns OK if longDNs is found in callback
- In V1, detection of extended SaNameT was done in decodeNtfValueT() by setting 
dataSize=0.
  This will make SaNameT field lost in variable data. In V2, removing changes 
in decodeNtfValueT(),
  adding getTypeFromValue() and saNtfPtrValGet() returns 
SA_AIS_ERR_NAME_TOO_LONG if any
  invalid extended SaNameT is found.

changeset d5e2e895479d191630c11f07a620ea77fa90f4ca
Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:31:56 +1000

        NTF: Add description of long DNs support to 
osaf/services/saf/ntfsv/README

        This should be added together with #873, but now it's a chance to get in
        with #1114

changeset d9bffe9c86fb2b039b1fdcd1451049d4777d43f9
Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:31:56 +1000

        NTF: Add notification to test unadapted consumer in "ntftest 36 
1"[#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 4fd061faa058a5158cece9fa4ff45328593f41ef
Author: Minh Hon Chau <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:31:56 +1000

        NTF: Add protection against longDn notification for unadapted
        producer/consumer [#1114] V2

        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        |  532 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_util.c       |   39 ++++-
 osaf/libs/common/ntfsv/ntfsv_mem.c          |    1 +
 osaf/services/saf/ntfsv/README              |   70 +++++++
 tests/ntfsv/tet_longDnObject_notification.c |    5 +
 5 files changed, 487 insertions(+), 160 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

Reply via email to