On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:16:55AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/2015 08:04 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (11/11/15 07:58), Petr Cech wrote:
> >>>On 11/09/2015 08:06 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >ehlo,
> >
> >You can see a leak in talloc report.
> >But it was ignored.
On (11/11/15 07:58), Petr Cech wrote:
>On 11/09/2015 08:06 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>ehlo,
>>
>>You can see a leak in talloc report.
>>But it was ignored. So we didn't notice it for long time.
>>http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/29/90/rhel7/ci-build-debug/src/tests/cwrap/become_user-tests.log
On 11/11/2015 08:04 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (11/11/15 07:58), Petr Cech wrote:
>On 11/09/2015 08:06 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>ehlo,
>>
>>You can see a leak in talloc report.
>>But it was ignored. So we didn't notice it for long time.
On 11/09/2015 08:06 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
You can see a leak in talloc report.
But it was ignored. So we didn't notice it for long time.
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/29/90/rhel7/ci-build-debug/src/tests/cwrap/become_user-tests.log
The first patch fixes the leak and the last
ehlo,
You can see a leak in talloc report.
But it was ignored. So we didn't notice it for long time.
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/29/90/rhel7/ci-build-debug/src/tests/cwrap/become_user-tests.log
The first patch fixes the leak and the last one is prevention
for such mistakes in future.
LS
