pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Expected warnings et al on platforms without secure sockets

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Expected warnings et al on platforms without secure sockets
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:00:38 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <765744795.22153381.1363727255612.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <765744795.22153381.1363727255612.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
On 20/03/13 08:07, Nathan Scott wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> I'm seeing messages like this when running QA
>>
>> Warning: __pmConnectRestoreFlags: cannot restore flags
>> fcntl(3,F_SETFL,0xffffff9b) failed: Bad file descriptor
>>
>> and it may be related to platforms where pmconfig -L reports
>> secure_sockets=false
>>
>> If the warning is "expected" in this case, we probably should not
>> emit it.  Otherwise I need to filter it out of the QA output, which
>> would mask it in any cases where the warning was not expected ...
>> unless I have conditional output based on secure_sockets=false or
>> secure_sockets=true which seems overkill.
>>
>> Comments? Thoughts?
>>
> 
> Something's gone wrong - the non-secure-sockets builds should be
> very much how things were before the introduction of NSS code,
> and we've never had this warning before.  If you can track it down
> that would be awesome, else I'll take a look later today.

Found this one ... error in looping logic left fd non-zero, even if no pmcd 
socket establised.  Tested patch on its way.

>> As an aside, when secure_sockets=false builddefs contains:
>> NSSCFLAGS = -I
>> NSPRCFLAGS = -I
>>
>> which just does not look right (shouldn't these be empty?).
>>
> 
> Yep, that's wrong too - thanks, that thinko was definitely one of
> mine, will fix it shortly.  :)

OK

> I am planning a 3.7.1 asap (today even, ideally) to roll up those
> 3.7.0 fixes from working with the Aconex operations folks - I'll
> roll these couple in too.  Also, I was adding code yesterday that
> needed to treat the postinst scripts similarly to the way you had
> tackled preinst before - if you could double check that stuff for
> me it'd be much appreciated (in dev branch now).
>

Only thing I can see is that in debian/cleantmpdirs 

target="$_new_tmp_dir/$_subdir/$f"

without any tests ... I think any of the following conditions would warrant a 
warning (maybe even if $_verbose is not set)
- $_new_tmp_dir does not exist or is not a directory
- $_new_tmp_dir/$_subdir does not exist or is not a directory
- $_new_tmp_dir/$_subdir/$f already exists

If $_new_tmp_dir and/or $_new_tmp_dir/$_subdir might not exist, then they'd 
need to be created with ownership and permissions that would match the pcp 
packages that deliver these (I'm thinking the core PCP piece is being upgraded, 
but what if one of these dirs is in an optional PCP package ... should not 
happen in this case, so I think the warning message is required ... and may be 
even an exit 1 as this is pretty broken if it happens.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>