On (04/11/15 09:36), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (03/11/15 12:38), Sumit Bose wrote:
>>On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:46:42AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> On (02/11/15 13:51), Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> >> On (02/11/15 10:05), Sumit
On (03/11/15 12:38), Sumit Bose wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:46:42AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (02/11/15 13:51), Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> On (02/11/15 10:05), Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at
On (02/11/15 13:51), Sumit Bose wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (02/11/15 10:05), Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> On (30/10/15 17:35), Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >> >Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> >I found
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:46:42AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (02/11/15 13:51), Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> On (02/11/15 10:05), Sumit Bose wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> >>
On (30/10/15 17:35), Sumit Bose wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I found this accidentally because I was still running SSSD with
>MALLOC_PERTURB_ set which I used some time ago to hunt a glibc issue.
>
>This issue wasn't caught before by the unit-tests because
>sss_cmd_done() which frees the context is overwritten
On (02/11/15 10:05), Sumit Bose wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (30/10/15 17:35), Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I found this accidentally because I was still running SSSD with
>> >MALLOC_PERTURB_ set which I used some time ago to hunt a glibc
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (02/11/15 10:05), Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> On (30/10/15 17:35), Sumit Bose wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I found this accidentally because I was still running
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is possible to
> tell Converity to assume debug_level is set to 10?
IIRC Coverity only runs make, but would it help to run the integration
tests with debugging enabled and MALLOC_PERTURB_ and "hope" they would
Hi,
I found this accidentally because I was still running SSSD with
MALLOC_PERTURB_ set which I used some time ago to hunt a glibc issue.
This issue wasn't caught before by the unit-tests because
sss_cmd_done() which frees the context is overwritten in the tests and
so far didn't free the
