On (09/03/16 15:21), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:32:39AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >> On 02/26/2016 02:03 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:08:45AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >> >>On 02/24/2016 03:19 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >>>Hi, >> >>> >> >>>the attached patch fixes: >> >>> https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2959 >> >>> >> >>>It was confirmed by the original reporter. The bug was there since 2009, >> >>>by the way, I'm really suprised we only caught it now.. >> >> >> >>Good job finding this. I'm inclined to ack this patch, I have one question >> >>though: >> >> >> >>> if (is_user && diff[0]) { >> >>> /* file memberuid removal operations */ >> >>> name = ldb_msg_find_attr_as_string(delop->entry, DB_NAME, NULL); >> >>> if (!name) { >> >>> return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; >> >>> } >> >>> >> >>> for (i = 0; diff[i]; i++) { >> >>> ret = mbof_append_muop(del_ctx, &del_ctx->muops, >> >>> &del_ctx->num_muops, >> >>> LDB_FLAG_MOD_DELETE, >> >>> diff[i], name, >> >>> DB_MEMBERUID); >> >> >> >>This invokes assignment: del_ctx->muops[j] = diff[i]. To be thorough we >> >>should talloc_steal(del_ctx->muops, diff[i]) here to ensure proper talloc >> >>hierarchy. But it is not necessary since delctx exists only for one >> >>operation... what do you think? >> > >> >Yes, I think it makes sense. >> >> Ack. > >* master: 2d84b65383f2d13d6f94ac561ad92907b59062f3 >* sssd-1-13: cd7a272fb361626a45d54cd45daaab4bfe7ad93f It would be good to write unit test for this leak. Do you have an idea how to reproduce the leak?
LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
