On (12/12/14 15:25), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>On 12/12/2014 03:02 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (12/12/14 14:25), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>On 12/11/2014 06:35 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>I think that smaller nesting levels are better.
>>>>
>>>>In general I would do
>>>>
>>>>if (ret == SPECIFIC_CODE) {
>>>> specific_error_handle_block
>>>>} else (ret != EOK) {
>>>> general_error_handle_block
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>If there are many specific error codes that need to be addressed,
>>>>use switch, but 1-2 else-ifs are ok to me.
>>>>
>>>>This pattern can be used if common_to_all_erros_action exists (and is
>>>>something more than just goto done):
>>>>
>>>>if (ret != EOK) {
>>>> if (ret == SPECIFIC_CODE) {
>>>> specific_error_handle_block
>>>> }
>>>> common_to_all_errors_action;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>So I would slightly prefer Lukas's solution over Pavel's.
>>>>
>>>>In this particullar case I would do:
>>>>if (ret == ENOENT) {
>>>> ....
>>>>} else if (ret != EOK) {
>>>> ....
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>Michal
>>>>
>>>OK, thank you both for opinions and for comments.
>>>
>>>Please see updated patch.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>Two questions/comments are inline.
>>
>>>From 94eade7b3c0c0729f5d4a322061c7c9688bd8130 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
>>>
>>>Fixes:
>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2520
>>>---
>>>src/db/sysdb.h | 2 +-
>>>src/db/sysdb_ops.c | 68
>>>++++++------------------------------------
>>>src/responder/nss/nsssrv_cmd.c | 27 ++++++++---------
>>>src/responder/pac/pacsrv_cmd.c | 29 ++++++++++--------
>>>src/tests/sysdb-tests.c | 5 +---
>>>5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
>>>errno_t sysdb_search_object_by_uuid(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
>>>diff --git a/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_cmd.c b/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_cmd.c
>>>index
>>>ea58920bc3611c84958e8d0aca0e122d90c68e5c..3c5d450714fb3f7655cd32aeef900b4f5e9782c7
>>> 100644
>>>--- a/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_cmd.c
>>>+++ b/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_cmd.c
>>>@@ -4491,7 +4491,19 @@ static errno_t nss_cmd_getbysid_search(struct
>>>nss_dom_ctx *dctx)
>>>
>>> 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;
>>You changed behaviour with this nesting if statements.
>>ENOENT will be returned every time. Previously it was returned just in case of
>>true condition (dctx->res->count == 0 && !dctx->check_provider)
>>Could you explain such change?
>Because otherwise 'res' is accessed in case of ENOENT which implies segfault
>in nss_cmd_getbysid_send_reply() or even earlier in check_cache(), if I read
>the code correctly.
>
Thank you for explanation.
But it does not change the fact that you change
the behaviour with this refactoring patch.
Please do such change in separate patch.
LS
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
