Re: [Openais] [corosync trunk] [patch] Initial support for security (uid-gid)

2009-05-19 Thread Jim Meyering
Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: @@ -150,6 +162,10 @@ void corosync_request_shutdown (void) poll_stop (0); totempg_finalize (); coroipcs_ipc_exit (); + + /*Remove uidgid_list*/ + corosync_remove_uidgid_list (); Is there really a need to free this list on exit?

[Openais] [corosync + openais] [patch] Dispatch return bad handle - proposed solution

2009-05-19 Thread Jan Friesse
Hi, attached are proposed solution to *dispatch* functions, which returns CS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE (AIS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE (9)). David, can you please test them, and give results? Anyway, this patches helps to SAF test, to pass CLM, EVT 100% and helps checkpoint to get one more point, so from my point of

[Openais] [openais] [patch] msg: Handle multiple list del

2009-05-19 Thread Jan Friesse
Hi, included patch solves multiple list_del in saMsgQueueClose, which leads to segfault. Regards, Honza diff --git a/trunk/lib/msg.c b/trunk/lib/msg.c index 1c20119..689ffbc 100644 --- a/trunk/lib/msg.c +++ b/trunk/lib/msg.c @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct queueInstance { SaMsgQueueHandleT

Re: [Openais] [openais] [patch] msg: Handle multiple list del

2009-05-19 Thread Ryan O'Hara
How did multiple list_del occur? Did you call saMsgQueueClose followed by saMsgFinalize? I'm not sure this is the best way to deal with this. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:43:09PM +0200, Jan Friesse wrote: Hi, included patch solves multiple list_del in saMsgQueueClose, which leads to segfault.

Re: [Openais] [openais] [patch] msg: Handle multiple list del

2009-05-19 Thread Jan Friesse
Ryan, it's test saMsgDispatch/2-3. Calls look like: [DEBUG]: saMsgQueueOpenAsync [DEBUG]: saMsgQueueUnlink [DEBUG]: saMsgQueueClose [DEBUG]: saMsgQueueFinalize So first is close. That call will lead to call of finalize and AFTER that close continues and tries to delete item from list again.

Re: [Openais] [corosync trunk] [patch] Initial support for security (uid-gid)

2009-05-19 Thread Joel Becker
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 08:45:36AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: @@ -150,6 +162,10 @@ void corosync_request_shutdown (void) poll_stop (0); totempg_finalize (); coroipcs_ipc_exit (); + + /*Remove uidgid_list*/ +

Re: [Openais] [corosync trunk] [patch] Initial support for security (uid-gid)

2009-05-19 Thread Fabio M. Di Nitto
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 11:07 -0700, Joel Becker wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 08:45:36AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: @@ -150,6 +162,10 @@ void corosync_request_shutdown (void) poll_stop (0); totempg_finalize (); coroipcs_ipc_exit ();

[Openais] corosync without spinlocks?

2009-05-19 Thread Adam Chase
So, Currently I have a system that doesn't support spinlocks. I'm trying to upgrade the system, but if that is not an available option, I could replace the spinlocks with regular locks. Do you think that would work? I'd be using libcpg. Thanks, Adam

Re: [Openais] [corosync trunk] [patch] Initial support for security (uid-gid)

2009-05-19 Thread Joel Becker
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 08:38:39PM +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: The comment approach sure would be good for corosync as there are plenty of areas that are not freed on exit. That's also why I didn't really bother with just one more kind of thing. The important point is is it freed

Re: [Openais] [corosync + openais] [patch] Dispatch return bad handle - proposed solution

2009-05-19 Thread David Teigland
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:40:53PM +0200, Jan Friesse wrote: Hi, attached are proposed solution to *dispatch* functions, which returns CS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE (AIS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE (9)). David, can you please test them, and give results? Thanks, I tried the corosync patch, and cpg_dispatch error 9