Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(RHEL-51171) sd-event: do not assert on invalid signal #25

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lnykryn
Copy link
Member

@lnykryn lnykryn commented Jul 30, 2024

The signalfd_siginfo struct is received from outside via a FD, hence assert() is not appropriate way to check it. Just do a normal runtime check.

(cherry picked from commit 7a64c5f23efbb51fe4f1229c1a8aed6dd858a0a9)

Resolves: RHEL-51171

The signalfd_siginfo struct is received from outside via a FD, hence
assert() is not appropriate way to check it. Just do a normal runtime
check.

(cherry picked from commit 7a64c5f23efbb51fe4f1229c1a8aed6dd858a0a9)

Resolves: RHEL-51171
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title sd-event: do not assert on invalid signal (RHEL-51171) sd-event: do not assert on invalid signal Jul 30, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 30, 2024

Commit validation

Tracker - RHEL-51171

The following commits meet all requirements

commit upstream
07539d2 - sd-event: do not assert on invalid signal systemd/systemd@7a64c5f

Tracker validation

Success

🟢 Tracker RHEL-51171 has set desired product: rhel-10.0.beta
🟢 Tracker RHEL-51171 has set desired component: systemd
🟢 Tracker RHEL-51171 has been approved


Pull Request validation

Failed

🔴 Failed or pending checks - build (GCC, auto)[failure],ci (fedora, rawhide, address,undefined, 1, -Og)[failure],ci (fedora, 40, 0, -Og)[failure],ci (centos, 9, 0, -Og)[failure]
🔴 Review - Missing review from a member

@dtardon
Copy link
Member

dtardon commented Jul 31, 2024

This commit is not a fix for RHEL-51171. It's a "follow-up" for row 44. I just didn't like the use of assert() there because it's conceptually wrong.

@lnykryn
Copy link
Member Author

lnykryn commented Jul 31, 2024

This commit is not a fix for RHEL-51171. It's a "follow-up" for row 44. I just didn't like the use of assert() there because it's conceptually wrong.

Ups, sorry, I haven't checked the actual commit :-D

@dtardon dtardon closed this Jul 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants