On (10/12/14 11:31), Pavel Reichl wrote: > >On 12/10/2014 10:25 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>On (10/12/14 10:09), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>On 12/10/2014 09:28 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>On (09/12/14 12:13), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>>On 12/02/2014 12:50 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>>>On (29/10/14 17:17), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>please see attached patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This patch is part of solution for >>>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1991 >>>>>>>which aims to unify return values of sysdb calls in case no results are >>>>>>>found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>a) this patch cannot be applied on current master. >>>>>rebased >>>>>>b) I wrote similar patch becuse sssd_be crashed in function >>>>>> get_object_from_cache. sysdb_search_object_by_sid didn' returned >>>>>> ENOENT and >>>>>> res->msgs was NULL (result: dereference of NULL pointer) >>>>>> -- it is yet another result of broken IPA <-> AD trust >>>>>>c) Could you compare your version and mine? >>>>>> Feel free to include my patch to yours if it is not good enogh. >>>>>I don't say it was not good enough but I updated my patch. >>>>>>d) test test_sysdb_delete_by_sid seems to be unrelated to this patch. >>>>>> I would prefer to have it in separete patch. >>>>>I have moved it to separate patch. This patch is just to verify that >>>>>sysdb_delete_by_sid() was not changed by the second patch. >>>>>>LS >>>>>> >>>>>Thanks, please see updated patches. >>>>>From 53c3be375eff41dc70e17bb9e079ec98b8c2c5e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>>From: Pavel Reichl <prei...@redhat.com> >>>>>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:47:11 +0000 >>>>>Subject: [PATCH 1/2] TESTS: sysdb_delete_by_sid() test return value >>>>> >>>>>Check that return value of sysdb_delete_by_sid() is not changed as >>>>>called SYSDB functions have changed the return value. >>>>> >>>>>Part of patches for: >>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1991 >>>>>--- >>>>LGTM >>>> >>>>>From 1cb395244d3ab3906af5b6c8b294e80055ad0a07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>>From: Pavel Reichl <prei...@redhat.com> >>>>>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:01:13 +0000 >>>>>Subject: [PATCH 2/2] SYSDB: sysdb_search_object_by_sid returns ENOENT >>>>> >>>>>sysdb_search_object_by_sid returns ENOENT if no results are found. >>>>> >>>>>Part od solution for: >>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1991 >>>>>--- >>>>>src/db/sysdb.h | 2 +- >>>>>src/db/sysdb_ops.c | 70 >>>>>++++++------------------------------------ >>>>>src/responder/nss/nsssrv_cmd.c | 27 ++++++++-------- >>>>>src/responder/pac/pacsrv_cmd.c | 26 ++++++++++------ >>>>>src/tests/sysdb-tests.c | 5 +-- >>>>>5 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>>diff --git a/src/db/sysdb.h b/src/db/sysdb.h >>>>>index >>>>>5bd7f90acb685bbaff5c98f433c7dce8175c33ca..9b88b4a63619456f8f3cc1961e29bbf3946ca5b8 >>>>> 100644 >>>>>--- a/src/db/sysdb.h >>>>>+++ b/src/db/sysdb.h >>>>>@@ -1033,7 +1033,7 @@ errno_t sysdb_search_object_by_sid(TALLOC_CTX >>>>>*mem_ctx, >>>>> struct sss_domain_info *domain, >>>>> const char *sid_str, >>>>> const char **attrs, >>>>>- struct ldb_result **msg); >>>>>+ struct ldb_result **res); >>>>> >>>>>errno_t sysdb_search_object_by_uuid(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx, >>>>> struct sss_domain_info *domain, >>>>>diff --git a/src/db/sysdb_ops.c b/src/db/sysdb_ops.c >>>>>index >>>>>998046a2ca1c746b2032f430e5f9c4a7151e1dbc..8d6b11c248fd7f895ff6a95c25d4372fc7f8445d >>>>> 100644 >>>>>--- a/src/db/sysdb_ops.c >>>>>+++ b/src/db/sysdb_ops.c >>>>>@@ -2995,8 +2995,15 @@ int sysdb_delete_by_sid(struct sysdb_ctx *sysdb, >>>>> >>>>> ret = sysdb_search_object_by_sid(tmp_ctx, domain, sid_str, NULL, >>>>> &res); >>>>> if (ret != EOK) { >>>>>- DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "search by sid failed: %d (%s)\n", >>>>>- ret, strerror(ret)); >>>>>+ if (ret == ENOENT) { >>>>>+ /* No existing entry. Just quit. */ >>>>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC, >>>>>+ "search by sid did not return any results.\n"); >>>>>+ ret = EOK; >>>>>+ } else { >>>>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "search by sid failed: %d (%s)\n", >>>>>+ ret, strerror(ret)); >>>>>+ } >>>>> goto done; >>>>I'm sorry but this isn't very readable. >>>>I prefer flat version. >>>>If/else if/else is easier to read and if you want to do micro optimisation >>>>then you can use switch case. >>>I find it better readable this way - errors are handled in single block. It's >>>not against any code style rules I'm aware of. But I suppose if this is the >>>only way to get the patches pushed I'll do it your preferred way... >>The problem is that I need to spend a lot of time with "parsing this code" >>Someone can overlook goto done in this case and introduce a bug. >>Your solution isn't bad but it isn't straightforward. >> >>This is especially problem in pac responder. >>There are 3 nested levels of if. WHY? >>I'm sorry but I can lost easily there. >> >> ret = sysdb_search_object_by_sid(cmdctx, dom, cmdctx->secid, NULL, >> &dctx->res); >> if (ret != EOK) { >> if (ret == ENOENT) { >> if (!dctx->check_provider) { >> DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "No results for getbysid call.\n"); >> >> /* set negative cache only if not result of cache check */ >> ret = sss_ncache_set_sid(nctx->ncache, false, cmdctx->secid); >> if (ret != EOK) { >> DEBUG(SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE, >> "Cannot set negative cache for %s\n", >> cmdctx->secid); >> } >> } >> return ENOENT; >> } >> DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Failed to make request to our cache!\n"); >> return EIO; >> } >> >>//snip >> >>>>>@@ -912,9 +913,14 @@ pac_store_membership(struct pac_req_ctx *pr_ctx, >>>>> ret = sysdb_search_object_by_sid(tmp_ctx, grp_dom, grp_sid_str, >>>>> group_attrs, &group); >>>>> if (ret != EOK) { >>>>>- DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_INTERNAL, "sysdb_search_object_by_sid " \ >>>>>- "for SID [%s] failed [%d][%s].\n", >>>>>- grp_sid_str, ret, strerror(ret)); >>>>>+ if (ret == ENOENT) { >>>>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "Unexpected number of groups >>>>>returned.\n"); >>>>>+ ret = EINVAL; >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> I found another interesting part. >>Why do you override ENOENT with EINVAL. ENOENT (msg->count == 0) was not >>special cased before your change. >Please again see context: >Before changing sysdb_search_object_by_sid() to return ENOENT on no result >EOK was returned and condition '(group->count != 1)' was true in that case. >So I just kept this behaviour. Is that clear now? Ahh I see. I overlook != 1 I was looking for == 0.
but still it would be better to return ENOENT. So we can distinguish between group->count == 0 and group->count > 1. It should not happen very. LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
