[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 366-372 Additional Coverity fixes

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>Dne 12.11.2014 v 08:58 Petr Spacek napsal(a):
>>On 11.11.2014 12:27, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>Dne 11.11.2014 v 11:40 Alexander Bokovoy napsal(a):
>>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>> From 82d7d37ca310af015018ebb2da2f9a72c4dabcaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>From: Jan Cholasta <jcholast at redhat.com>
>>>>>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:10:27 +0000
>>>>>Subject: [PATCH 4/7] Fix unchecked return value in ipa-kdb
>>>>>
>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4713
>>>>>---
>>>>>daemons/ipa-kdb/ipa_kdb_mspac.c | 3 +++
>>>>>1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>>diff --git a/daemons/ipa-kdb/ipa_kdb_mspac.c
>>>>>b/daemons/ipa-kdb/ipa_kdb_mspac.c
>>>>>index c8f6c76..debcd1b 100644
>>>>>--- a/daemons/ipa-kdb/ipa_kdb_mspac.c
>>>>>+++ b/daemons/ipa-kdb/ipa_kdb_mspac.c
>>>>>@@ -2071,6 +2071,9 @@ krb5_error_code ipadb_sign_authdata(krb5_context
>>>>>context,
>>>>>                             ipactx->kdc_hostname,
>>>>>strlen(ipactx->kdc_hostname),
>>>>>                             NULL, NULL, &result) == 0) {
>>>>>                 kerr = ipadb_reinit_mspac(ipactx, true);
>>>>>+                if (kerr != 0 && kerr != ENOENT) {
>>>>>+                    goto done;
>>>>>+                }
>>>>>             }
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure we should drop the sign_authdata request here. If we were
>>>>able to re-initialize our view of trusted domains, we simply cannot
>>>>re-sign incoming PAC but this is handled in ipadb_verify_pac() and
>>>>ipadb_sign_pac() and if the former returns NULL value for PAC, we exit
>>>>with a return code of 0 while this change will fail a cross-realm TGT
>>>>request unconditionally.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK, what would be a proper fix? Just ignore the return value of
>>>ipadb_reinit_mspac here?
>>
>>Guys, I did not see the code but all instances of "ignore return code" I have
>>seen were wrong, including cases where code comment explicitly said "we ignore
>>return code on purpose" :-)
>>
>>At least log an error message if you can't think of anything better ...
>>
>
>I don't disagree, if that's the proper fix.
>
>Alexander, or someone else, could you please finish the review of the 
>patches? Thanks.
I've ACKed other patches but I'm not going to accept this patch. Rest is
fine.
-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy