[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] V2
Summary: imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] Review request for Ticket(s): 2771 Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Ravi Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop, release Development branch: ticket-2771 Base revision: 81ef74a531f84720fd905d25e3d06b1ff799f83d Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review Impacted area Impact y/n Docsn Build systemn RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF servicesy OpenSAF servicesn Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): - *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 8be516e90d971b3fc3e100c8f1f45d251e3a8003 Author: Vu Minh Nguyen Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:11:48 +0700 imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] PBE will be restarted and will not be able to come up if user requests creating IMM object class with same name of reserved ones. This patch adds code to reject such request with SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM. Added Files: src/imm/immnd/immnd_common.c src/imm/immnd/immnd_common.h Complete diffstat: -- src/imm/Makefile.am| 2 + src/imm/agent/imma_om_api.cc | 1 - .../apitest/management/test_saImmOmClassCreate_2.c | 48 +++ src/imm/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 55 +--- src/imm/immnd/immnd.conf | 9 ++ src/imm/immnd/immnd_cb.h | 1 + src/imm/immnd/immnd_common.c | 75 src/imm/immnd/immnd_common.h | 32 +++ src/imm/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 17 src/imm/immnd/immnd_main.c | 99 +- 10 files changed, 285 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) Testing Commands: - Run added tests `immomtest 2 19`, `immomtest 2 20`. Testing, Expected Results: -- Tests PASS Conditions of Submission: - Ack from peer reviewers Arch Built StartedLinux distro --- mipsn 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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.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 manu
[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771]
Summary: imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] Review request for Ticket(s): 2771 Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Ravi Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop, release Development branch: ticket-2771 Base revision: 81ef74a531f84720fd905d25e3d06b1ff799f83d Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review Impacted area Impact y/n Docsn Build systemn RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF servicesy OpenSAF servicesn Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): - *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 0ab2275cc190d7be107a9294e1b8411e07a4f5b9 Author: Vu Minh Nguyen Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:19:57 +0700 imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] PBE will be restarted and will not be able to come up if user requests creating IMM object class with same name of reserved ones. This patch adds code to reject such request with SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM. Complete diffstat: -- src/imm/agent/imma_om_api.cc | 1 - .../apitest/management/test_saImmOmClassCreate_2.c | 48 ++ src/imm/immnd/immnd.conf | 9 ++ src/imm/immnd/immnd_cb.h | 1 + src/imm/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 17 src/imm/immnd/immnd_main.c | 106 + 6 files changed, 181 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Testing Commands: - Run added test cases Testing, Expected Results: -- Test PASS Conditions of Submission: - Ack from peer reviewers Arch Built StartedLinux distro --- mipsn 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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.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. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771]
Hi Zoran and Anders, Thanks for your comments. Will send V2 patch for review with your proposals & suggestions. Regards, Vu > -Original Message- > From: Zoran Milinkovic [mailto:zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 1:28 PM > To: anders.bjornerst...@telia.com; Vu Minh Nguyen > ; ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating > reserved IMM class names [#2771] > > Hi, > > I agree with you that the main check must be on the service side. > > I've been thinking of adding a parameter in immnd.conf to define reserved > class names like: > export > RESERVED_CLASSES=classes,objects,attr_dflt,attrdef,multi_value_int,etc > > This will apply as well with the coming change in IMM where any database > can be used for PBE. > So, if someone wants to use another database, they may design database > tables in different ways, and may have different reserved class names. > > The default reserved class names should be from the default SQLite database > that are used today. > > BR, > Zoran > > -Original Message- > From: and...@acm.org [mailto:anders.bjornerst...@telia.com] > Sent: den 26 januari 2018 13:05 > To: Vu Minh Nguyen ; Zoran Milinkovic > ; ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating > reserved IMM class names [#2771] > > Hi Vu, > > If the check is for preventing a "fatal" problem, (such as the PBE *never* > coming back up, resulting presumably sooner or later in arollback to the > latest > backup), thenI argue the check/prevention needs to at least be in the server. > It vould of course be both in the server and the library, but usually it is > better > to avoid redundant checks since it simplifies testing of such checks. > > The risk with having the checks done only at the client/library side is that > the > server is left vulnerable to "bad" clients/applications. > OpenSAF has no control over the application software. Application software > may corrupt its own memory resulting in the sending of corrupt messages. You > could even contemplate malicious attacks exploiting such a known > vulnerability if they manage to get access to the client side of the services. > > Thus I think the server side should be made "bullet proof" as far as is > known/possible in protecting itself expecially against faults of the maximum > gravity, i.e. causing cyclickal restarts and where not even a cluster restart > helps. You would have to go for a disruptive restore from backup here as I > understand it. > > As always when a new *serious* problem like this is discovered I expect that a > regression test case will be added to the imm testing suites somewhere and to > the system tests. > > Regards > Anders Bjornerstedt > > > > > >Ursprungligt meddelande---- > >Från : vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au > >Datum : 2018-01-26 - 11:33 (GMT) > >Till : anders.bjornerst...@telia.com, ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com, > >zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Kopia : > >opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >Ämne : Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow > >creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] > > > >Hi Anders Bjornerstedt, > > > >Do you mean we should move the validity check to IMMND (e.g: fevs local > check) or have additional check at IMMND side? > > > >I thought the check here is about validation of user's input parameters, then > it could be better to detect invalid ones as early as possible. > > > >Regards, Vu > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: and...@acm.org [mailto:anders.bjornerst...@telia.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 5:32 PM > >> To: vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au; ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com; > >> zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com > >> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow > >> creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think the general principle needs to be that validity checks to > >> eliminate the risk of introducing database inconsistency needs to be > >> performed in the server. The server needs to protect itself from any > >> faulty client generating "fatal" messages. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Anders Bjornerstedt > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Ursprungligt m
Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771]
Hi, I agree with you that the main check must be on the service side. I've been thinking of adding a parameter in immnd.conf to define reserved class names like: export RESERVED_CLASSES=classes,objects,attr_dflt,attrdef,multi_value_int,etc This will apply as well with the coming change in IMM where any database can be used for PBE. So, if someone wants to use another database, they may design database tables in different ways, and may have different reserved class names. The default reserved class names should be from the default SQLite database that are used today. BR, Zoran -Original Message- From: and...@acm.org [mailto:anders.bjornerst...@telia.com] Sent: den 26 januari 2018 13:05 To: Vu Minh Nguyen ; Zoran Milinkovic ; ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] Hi Vu, If the check is for preventing a "fatal" problem, (such as the PBE *never* coming back up, resulting presumably sooner or later in arollback to the latest backup), thenI argue the check/prevention needs to at least be in the server. It vould of course be both in the server and the library, but usually it is better to avoid redundant checks since it simplifies testing of such checks. The risk with having the checks done only at the client/library side is that the server is left vulnerable to "bad" clients/applications. OpenSAF has no control over the application software. Application software may corrupt its own memory resulting in the sending of corrupt messages. You could even contemplate malicious attacks exploiting such a known vulnerability if they manage to get access to the client side of the services. Thus I think the server side should be made "bullet proof" as far as is known/possible in protecting itself expecially against faults of the maximum gravity, i.e. causing cyclickal restarts and where not even a cluster restart helps. You would have to go for a disruptive restore from backup here as I understand it. As always when a new *serious* problem like this is discovered I expect that a regression test case will be added to the imm testing suites somewhere and to the system tests. Regards Anders Bjornerstedt >Ursprungligt meddelande >Från : vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au >Datum : 2018-01-26 - 11:33 (GMT) >Till : anders.bjornerst...@telia.com, ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com, >zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com Kopia : >opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >Ämne : Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow >creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] > >Hi Anders Bjornerstedt, > >Do you mean we should move the validity check to IMMND (e.g: fevs local check) >or have additional check at IMMND side? > >I thought the check here is about validation of user's input parameters, then >it could be better to detect invalid ones as early as possible. > >Regards, Vu > >> -Original Message- >> From: and...@acm.org [mailto:anders.bjornerst...@telia.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 5:32 PM >> To: vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au; ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com; >> zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com >> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow >> creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] >> >> Hi, >> >> I think the general principle needs to be that validity checks to >> eliminate the risk of introducing database inconsistency needs to be >> performed in the server. The server needs to protect itself from any >> faulty client generating "fatal" messages. >> >> Thanks >> Anders Bjornerstedt >> >> >> >> >> >----Ursprungligt meddelande---- >> >Från : vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au >> >Datum : 2018-01-25 - 13:54 (GMT) >> >Till : zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com, ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com >> >Kopia : opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >Ämne : [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow >> >creating >> reserved IMM class names [#2771] >> > >> >Summary: imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] >> >Review request for Ticket(s): 2771 Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Ravi >> >Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** >> >Affected branch(es): develop, release Development branch: >> >ticket-2771 Base revision: c1daa9cc8e583d0a6024b28241f2b671bfa615d8 >> >Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review >> > >> > >> >Impacted area Impact y/n >> >
Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771]
Hi Anders Bjornerstedt, Do you mean we should move the validity check to IMMND (e.g: fevs local check) or have additional check at IMMND side? I thought the check here is about validation of user's input parameters, then it could be better to detect invalid ones as early as possible. Regards, Vu > -Original Message- > From: and...@acm.org [mailto:anders.bjornerst...@telia.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 5:32 PM > To: vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au; ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com; > zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating > reserved IMM class names [#2771] > > Hi, > > I think the general principle needs to be that validity checks to eliminate > the > risk of introducing database inconsistency needs to > be performed in the server. The server needs to protect itself from any faulty > client generating "fatal" messages. > > Thanks > Anders Bjornerstedt > > > > > >Ursprungligt meddelande > >Från : vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au > >Datum : 2018-01-25 - 13:54 (GMT) > >Till : zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com, ravisekhar.ko...@oracle.com > >Kopia : opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >Ämne : [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating > reserved IMM class names [#2771] > > > >Summary: imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] > >Review request for Ticket(s): 2771 > >Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Ravi > >Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** > >Affected branch(es): develop, release > >Development branch: ticket-2771 > >Base revision: c1daa9cc8e583d0a6024b28241f2b671bfa615d8 > >Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review > > > > > >Impacted area Impact y/n > > > > Docsn > > Build systemn > > RPM/packaging n > > Configuration files n > > Startup scripts n > > SAF servicesy > > OpenSAF servicesn > > Core libraries n > > Samples n > > Tests n > > Other n > > > > > >Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > >- > >*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > > >revision 8e072e9858c105266d7975ad366a579b720dfcae > >Author: Vu Minh Nguyen > >Date:Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:40:08 +0700 > > > >imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] > > > >PBE will be restarted and will never come up if user requests > >creating IMM class object class which is reserved by PBE. > > > >This patch adds code to reject such request with > SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM. > > > > > > > >Complete diffstat: > >-- > > src/imm/agent/imma_om_api.cc | 27 ++- > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > >Testing Commands: > >- > >Create class, same name as reserved classes. E.g: "objects" > > > > > >Testing, Expected Results: > >-- > >Get SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM and PBE is not restarted > > > > > >Conditions of Submission: > >- > >Get ack from peer reviewers > > > > > >Arch Built StartedLinux distro > >--- > >mipsn 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 incorrect
[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771]
Summary: imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] Review request for Ticket(s): 2771 Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Ravi Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop, release Development branch: ticket-2771 Base revision: c1daa9cc8e583d0a6024b28241f2b671bfa615d8 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review Impacted area Impact y/n Docsn Build systemn RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF servicesy OpenSAF servicesn Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): - *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 8e072e9858c105266d7975ad366a579b720dfcae Author: Vu Minh Nguyen Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:40:08 +0700 imm: not allow creating reserved IMM class names [#2771] PBE will be restarted and will never come up if user requests creating IMM class object class which is reserved by PBE. This patch adds code to reject such request with SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM. Complete diffstat: -- src/imm/agent/imma_om_api.cc | 27 ++- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Testing Commands: - Create class, same name as reserved classes. E.g: "objects" Testing, Expected Results: -- Get SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM and PBE is not restarted Conditions of Submission: - Get ack from peer reviewers Arch Built StartedLinux distro --- mipsn 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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.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. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
