On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > Just continuing this for my own learning experience as I still don't see > it. I also don't see why the outputs from the commited code are OK, on > testing I'm getting things like: [55, 107, 73, 50, 87, 100, 119, 49, 121, > 76, 56, 43, 104, 48, 112, 105, 107, 102, 111, 88, 87, 73, 98, 113, 120, 52, > 85, 61]. I expected this to be a string made up of different characters to > form a random password, what looks like an array converted to a string. > > With the char set know, it would be easy to decode the password than the >> previous encoded version. > > > So the argument being put forward is we know the charset that makes up the > password? This is true but we know the charset for a base64 string, > its A-Z,a-z,0-9,and +. Even still, with the charset exposed I don't see how > this is an issue(bare with my math here). Its a roughly 72 charset > generating a password of length 20. Thats 72^20 different possible > combinations. If we say it takes a second to brute each combination you are
Ian, I will let Rajani and Daan reply to you, but you can get much faster than 1 combination per second: http://hackaday.com/2012/12/06/25-gpus-brute-force-348-billion-hashes-per-second-to-crack-your-passwords/ > looking at roughly (4.445×10^29) years to test all combinations. ( > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=72%5E20+seconds+to+years ) > > The function in question is suppose to return a string that acts as the > password given to AccountService to create the new user account.... on > testing the code that has been committed into the 4.3 branch I'm just > getting back stuff like the following: [55, 107, 73, 50, 87, 100, 119, 49, > 121, 76, 56, 43, 104, 48, 112, 105, 107, 102, 111, 88, 87, 73, 98, 113, > 120, 52, 85, 61] > > I executed the test manually by just pulling the code out and running it > alone from command line: > https://gist.github.com/imduffy15/ae7a809aa7bb6cb198e3. > > Regards, > Ian > > > On 31 January 2014 04:38, Rajani Karuturi <rajani.karut...@citrix.com>wrote: > >> With the char set know, it would be easy to decode the password than the >> previous encoded version. >> This is a concern because even for ldap users we also check authentication >> against db. >> >> Thanks a lot for taking Daan and Ian. >> >> >> ~Rajani >> >> >> >> On 31-Jan-2014, at 1:20 am, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry about the delay in replying to this have been doing exams at uni >> all >>> week. >>> >>> Daan's change looks to change Rajani concern. >>> >>> Might be me being naive but I fail to understand the concern fully... >>> The given character selection was roughly 72 with a string of length 20. >> If >>> my math is correct thats 72^20 different possible combinations... >>> >>> Anyways, thanks for taking care of this Daan. >>> >>> On 30 January 2014 13:28, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Guys, >>>> >>>> I found two reported issues of category 'scary'. To satify Rajuri's >>>> concerns I would like to revert Ian's commit and checkin two changes >>>> that change returning >>>> byte[].toString() >>>> into >>>> Arrays.toString(byte[]) >>>> on return statements of generatePassword methods. >>>> >>>> if no objections come in within a few..., >>>> Daan >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Animesh, Ian, >>>>> >>>>> Can you comment on this? >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find any findbugs issues of the the scariest kind in >>>>> yesterdays version of the 4.3 branch. What was solved that needs to go >>>>> in in spite of Rajuri's reservations? >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Daan >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daan Hoogland < >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> Sorry Rajani, >>>>>> >>>>>> I had seen no reaction to Ian's explenation and the request by >>>>>> Animesh to pull it so I just did. let me look into it for a minute >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Rajani Karuturi >>>>>> <rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I see that the commit 9776e1af1c92486f5081b1ee8fa95cf0edb86b97 is >>>> already pushed to 4.3. I don't see any response on my concern as well. >>>>>>> Is it just me or anyone else sees a security issue with the generate >>>> password change? >>>>>>> Ian/Animesh/Daan, can you please respond? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> ~Rajani >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 29-Jan-2014, at 10:59 am, Rajani Karuturi < >>>> rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Ian, >>>>>>>> Before it is pushed to 4.3, can you fix the generate password change >>>> like i suggested in the other mail? This current change would make it >> less >>>> secure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> ~Rajani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29-Jan-2014, at 8:03 am, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Animesh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tested all those changes to detail. Those lines were removed due to >>>>>>>>> unexpected behavior that I had not spotted until now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They were suppose to allow for better fall over between multiple >>>> domain >>>>>>>>> controllers, how ever they were causing caching to occur. This >> meant >>>> if a >>>>>>>>> users password was reset in LDAP the old password was still >> allowing >>>> login >>>>>>>>> for a limited time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please pull the changes forward, >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian. >>>>>>>>> On 29 Jan 2014 00:07, "Animesh Chaturvedi" < >>>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I look at this commit for example >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;h=92b4f66d73562e4211d2d787554ff229dbeb5705 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It removes the two lines from LdapContextFactory.java >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> environment.put("com.sun.jndi.ldap.read.timeout", "500");- >>>>>>>>>> environment.put("com.sun.jndi.ldap.connect.pool", "true"); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is that reported by find bug? I don't know this code so not sure >>>> if it is >>>>>>>>>> intentional or not ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The point is there may be unintended risks in allowing late >> changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:35 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure all of the ones are needed. A quick look at 20+ >>>> commits from >>>>>>>>>> Daan show many formatting changes that may not be necessary and >>>> hinder >>>>>>>>>> quick review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:16 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 28 jan. 2014, at 23:50, Animesh Chaturvedi < >>>>>>>>>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Animesh, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not in agreement here. These are squashed bugs and we want as >> less >>>> bugs >>>>>>>>>> in the release as possible. >>>>>>>>>>> [Animesh] I understand but once we enter RC phase we only limit >>>>>>>>>> important fixes. I have pulled in 2 commits from yours and 1 from >>>> Daan. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We limited our fixes to only the important issues that we found. >>>> The other >>>>>>>>>> 6000 issues between coverity and findbugs are still being triaged >>>> and will >>>>>>>>>> probably not make it into this release. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is why we test any RC before we release it. >>>>>>>>>>> [Animesh] Of course but timing is a bit off, if this was done a >>>> month >>>>>>>>>> back it would have been fine. >>>>>>>>>>> I say include all the big fixes we have in the release. If that >>>> means >>>>>>>>>> more testing before we cut the RC then that is what it is. I can't >>>>>>>>>> rightfully vote for a release with known issues with existing >> fixes. >>>>>>>>>>> [Animesh] Any release will have known issues, if we have fixes >> but >>>> can't >>>>>>>>>> be sure on regression impact then we have to make a choice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Agreed, but we just don't agree on what that choice should be yet >>>> ;-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Quality over release schedule would be my vote then. >>>>>>>>>>> [Animesh] But why so late? Why was this activity not planned >> early >>>> on? I >>>>>>>>>> have been reminding community to call out issues early on since >> like >>>>>>>>>> mid-December. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On November 4 I sent the mail to the dev list that static code >>>> analysis >>>>>>>>>> (coverity) found 6000+ issues that needed to be triaged. I worked >>>> on quite >>>>>>>>>> a few with my colleagues, but it's a big task for just the four of >>>> us. >>>>>>>>>> Findbugs just helped us to quickly identify the real scary issues >>>> among >>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>> So I agree that the timing is less than ideal, but we should do >> our >>>> utmost >>>>>>>>>> best to ship the highest quality piece of software we can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Hugo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 jan. 2014, at 18:48, Animesh Chaturvedi < >>>>>>>>>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks these issues reported by find-bugs have existed for some >>>> time. I >>>>>>>>>> am not confident in picking them up now for 4.3 as it may break >>>> code that >>>>>>>>>> assumed old way of working. We can take them up for 4.3 >> maintenance >>>>>>>>>> release. I wish we had done this exercise and not waited until >> now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will pick Hugo's commit for which he called -1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Trippie [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hugo >>>> Trippaers >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:29 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Animesh, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Daan here. We focussed on the bugs with a findbugs >>>>>>>>>> annotation of scariest. I think that would warrant them to be >>>> included in >>>>>>>>>> the 4.3 release, so please cherry-pick them all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 jan. 2014, at 09:32, Daan Hoogland < >>>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I took up a lot of messages from findbugs in the server package >>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>> the weekend. Not that I will attach my soul to the shipping of >> my >>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes but some of them are == vs eq and some are really nasty >>>>>>>>>>>>> nullpointer issues (a chack after first use is very common). >> You >>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>> cherry-pick them or not. I don't think you should leave any of >>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>> behind. Even with David being right we should go against him at >>>>>>>>>>>>> every convenient time, running the risk of being called his >> wife. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Animesh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you cherry-pick the below commit from from 4.3-forward to >>>> 4.3 >>>>>>>>>> branch? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fix findbug issues within LDAP authenticator commit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 92b4f66d73562e4211d2d787554ff229dbeb5705 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2014 03:48, Animesh Chaturvedi >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo I was reviewing your commits to 4.3-forward and looked >> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your commits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> h = f18c5a1910b6370585a1d61638b8310c3ecba5ef >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> h = 60ac12780bfa1604902a89d5dc7937a8b9334e0d >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you want the last one which has fixes for NetUtils >> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XenServerStorageMotionStrategy for which you had put -1 in >>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC but the commit includes more files. Can you make limited >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes directly to 4.3? I want to build another RC later >>>> tonight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto: >> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com >>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 1:30 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to fix the most important ones for 4.3. There may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions in the code which we may not know and may get >>>> broken >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if these issues are fixed late. I will pull in the one Hugo >>>> casted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for the first vote, any others? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:46 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So just curious if I am the only one concerned about a ton of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes going in at the last minute. If the fixes are for >> serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs and we have consensus around their severity being high >>>> enough, >>>>>>>>>> indeed lets fix things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My concern is that much of the QA we do is manual; and while >> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are getting better; fixing tons of things at the last minute >>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have unintended consequences that we don't know about and >> won't >>>>>>>>>> easily find. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I yearn for the day when our automated testing is broad >> enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we can do fixes right up to the wire and know that >> things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still work, I am just not sure that I have confidence that we >>>> are >>>>>>>>>> there yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? I am being paranoid? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Daan Hoogland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh, I commented the once i made yesterday with >> findbugs: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I allready send a few and will get you a list of the rest >>>> later >>>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good job fellas. I see a number of commits 20+ into >>>> 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>> branch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are their specific commits you want me to pick up out of >> these? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:41 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get very far last night and will be looking at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> package again this afternoon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bon appétit, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Ian Duffy < >> i...@ianduffy.ie >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixed the issues highlighted in the ldap user >> authentication >>>>>>>>>> package. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have pushed to 4.3-forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 January 2014 22:26, Daan Hoogland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or reply to this mail with the filename you are working >> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be looking at the server package as it seems to >>>> contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Hugo Trippaers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <h...@trippaers.nl> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also added a job to master with the Findbugs report >>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cobertura code coverage report. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good stuff, we have a 12% coverage of our classes with >>>> unit >>>>>>>>>> tests. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement over the last release where we had 4% iirc. >> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 306 reports from Findbugs, of which the majority are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internationalization >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (String.getBytes without charset mostly). On the coverity >>>> site >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6000+ issues still open, but at least that number is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6000+ relatively stable, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix as much issues as we introduce and it's untuned so we >>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a large number of false positives there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that on average the automated tools tell us that >>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving, which a good thing. Combined with the >> functional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing and the simulator build we can prove that we are >>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite well on the code quality angle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 jan. 2014, at 14:13, Daan Hoogland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H Hugo, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll spend some time on it tonight. Do you have a work >>>> load >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution scheme or is it random access? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Hugo Trippaers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <h...@trippaers.nl> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've made Jenkins run the findbugs analysis on >>>> 4.3-forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody who is willing to help triage the findings? >> Maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is some stuff that we need to fix? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the url is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/cloudstack-4.3-forward-mave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bui >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /3/findbugsResult/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>
