Hi Vu,
Log test suite 4 is failing with this patch on changeset: 7614, please
check.
=====================================================================
# /usr/bin/logtest 4
17 PASSED Log Service Administration API, change sev filter, ERR
invalid stream;
18 PASSED Log Service Administration API, change sev filter, ERR
invalid arg type;
error: in tet_LogOiOps.c at 356: SA_AIS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE, expected
SA_AIS_OK - exiting
=====================================================================
-AVM
On 5/11/2016 10:32 AM, Vu Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Summary: log: verify logBufSize to avoid node malfunctioned [#1789]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1789
> Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi, Lennart
> Pull request to: Lennart
> Affected branch(es): 4.7, 5.0, default
> Development branch: default
>
> --------------------------------
> Impacted area Impact y/n
> --------------------------------
> Docs n
> Build system n
> RPM/packaging n
> Configuration files n
> Startup scripts n
> SAF services n
> OpenSAF services n
> Core libraries n
> Samples n
> Tests n
> Other n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> ---------------------------------------------
> <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>>
>
> changeset 7eca74fee235dd6adda4c27027da5072121c7808
> Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:15:01 +0700
>
> log: verify logBufSize to avoid node malfunctioned [#1789]
>
> When accidentally passing an invalid value of logBufSize to
> saLogWriteLogAsync() such as a very large number which is caused by not
> using strlen() on logBuf, it will cause a lot of troubles.
>
> Add code to verify if logBufSize is calculated based on logBuf or not
> and
> also prevent too big data sent to server side.
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
> osaf/libs/agents/saf/lga/lga_api.c | 40
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> tests/logsv/tet_saLogStreamOpen_2.c | 4 ++++
> tests/logsv/tet_saLogWriteLogAsync.c | 38
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> Adding 2 new test cases:
> 1) logtest 2 42
> 2) logtest 2 43
>
> Run logtest application.
>
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> All tests pass
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> Get ack from peer reviewers.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> _______________________________________________
> Opensaf-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
