On (11/07/16 10:55), Sumit Bose wrote: >On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:29:56AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote: >> > On 06/22/2016 11:14 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> > > On (20/06/16 14:44), Petr Cech wrote: >> > > > >Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > >there is patch for #3023 attached. >> > > > > >> > > > >Reason for this patch is explained in commit message. >> > > > > >> > > > >I am open to discussion. In my opinion we don't need to connect sysdb >> > > > >pointer >> > > > >with domain structure because it is not used in other upgrade >> > > > >functions too. >> > > > > >> > > > >Regards >> > > > > >> > > > >-- >> > > > >Petr^4 Čech >> > > > From d0cee759147272f33427388af76ea66307e34881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > > > >From: Petr Cech <[email protected]> >> > > > >Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:19:03 -0300 >> > > > >Subject: [PATCH] SYSDB: Fixing DB update >> > > > > >> > > > >Functions sysdb_user_base_dn() and sysdb_group_base_dn() expect >> > > > >that struct sss_domain_info contains pointer to struct sysdb_ctx. >> > > > >This is not true in case of sysdb_upgrade functions. >> > > > >This patch fixes the situation and revert code to the state before >> > > > >12a000c8c7c07259e438fb1e992134bdd07d9a30 commit. >> > > > > >> > > I didn't test but it make sense. >> > > It would be good to add comment to the code. So it will not be changed >> > > in future (ldb_dn_new_fmt -> sysdb_user_*_dn) >> > > >> > > Other alternative might be to "temporary initialize" >> > > dom->sysdb and then set it back to NULL. >> > > Or permanently initialize it sooner if sysdb is not destroyed >> > > after upgrade. >> > > >> > > Others might have different ideas/preferences as well. >> > > >> > > LS >> > >> > Hi Lukas, >> > >> > thanks for comment. I agree that we should protect this part of code from >> > the changes in future. >> > >> > I vote for comment in code. So, there is new patch attached. >> >> Thank you, I think comments are ok for the update code. >> >> I tested the version 10 update by just setting the version in the cache >> file to 0.10 and it fails without the patch and works as expected with >> the patch (please note that later on another update fails becasue we add >> an index item unconditionally without checking if it already exists and >> I started with a 0.17 cache). >> >> There is just a minor typo (see below) which might also be fixed while >> pushing the patch. >> >> Just waiting for CI ... > >... passed http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/49/45/summary.html > >ACK > master: * 311836214245600566f881ff6253594e0999008e
sssd-1-13: * 0a7784d3584a5a6db1e0251e1bcc9dd1790f1f38 LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
