Ack with comment: the information added to the README file should also go into the NTF programmer's reference document.
/ Anders Widell On 10/01/2014 05:42 AM, Minh Hon Chau wrote: > 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
