Summary: cpnd: To erase element from section_db if inserting the element into
local_section_db fails [#1843] V2
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1843
Peer Reviewer(s): mahesh.va...@oracle.com; anders.wid...@ericsson.com
Pull request to: mahesh.va...@oracle.com
Affected branch(es): default, 5.0, 4.7
Development branch: default
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset f8e8163e7be084e00a8277d48801ac2c4bab2c25
Author: Nhat Pham <nhat.p...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:29:07 +0700
cpnd: To erase element from section_db if inserting the element into
local_section_db fails [#1843] V2
Problem:
--------
There are 2 steps when a section is added in to the database
(function cpnd_ckpt_sec_add_db()): 1. The section information is
inserted
into section_db map 2. The section information is inserted into
local_section_db map
In case the step 2. fails, the cpnd_ckpt_sec_add_db() returns a fault
code
immediately without erasing the section information inserted in step 1.
This
leads a core dump triggered when the checkpoint replica is deleted
because
there is an invalid element in the section_db map.
Solution:
---------
The solution is to erase the section information in step 1 in case the
step 2 fails.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_db.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_res.c | 11 ++++++++++-
osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_sec.cc | 7 ++++++-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
ckpttest
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
All test cases pass.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
-
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
