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

Fix incorrect coercing of json-object int to uint32 in sparse-array-lookup-table implementation #4502

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

janmejay
Copy link
Member

Fix incorrect coercing of json-object int to uint32
in sparse-array-lookup-table implementation.

This aims to fix broken int-max case described
#4490 and
#4490.

@janmejay
Copy link
Member Author

@rgerhards I haven't bumped libfastjson version. Do I need to? or is it ok to defer it to the release process?

This aims to fix broken int-max case described
 rsyslog#4490 and
 rsyslog#4490.
@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

@rgerhards I haven't bumped libfastjson version. Do I need to? or is it ok to defer it to the release process?

Requiring a new libfastjson is always a bit hard, as some distros may not carry it for many month. I would prefer if we could do a configure check on the version and emit a warning/error message if and only if the function in question is actually needed by current config. Does that make sense to you?

@rgerhards rgerhards self-assigned this Jan 18, 2021
@rgerhards rgerhards added this to the v8.2102 milestone Jan 18, 2021
@janmejay
Copy link
Member Author

@rgerhards I haven't bumped libfastjson version. Do I need to? or is it ok to defer it to the release process?

Requiring a new libfastjson is always a bit hard, as some distros may not carry it for many month. I would prefer if we could do a configure check on the version and emit a warning/error message if and only if the function in question is actually needed by current config. Does that make sense to you?

There was a line with incorrect formatting, fixed that.

Since lookup-table is always enabled, its part of the core, dependency isn't really optional.

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

Since lookup-table is always enabled, its part of the core, dependency isn't really optional.

yes, but if the config does not use any lookup table at all - then we do not need it, right? I think that's a very common case.

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

side-note: I have updated the Ubuntu 20.04 containers and re-initiated check runs for them - so we should get a result now

@janmejay
Copy link
Member Author

yes, but if the config does not use any lookup table at all - then we do not need it, right? I think that's a very common case.

Compilation wouldn't succeed without the new function json_object_get_uint. So runtime check wouldn't be useful.

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

side-note: I have updated the Ubuntu 20.04 containers and re-initiated check runs for them - so we should get a result now

mistake on my side... will look into it

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

@janmejay FYI: I am working on updgrading the CI infrastructure to the new (yet-unreleased) librelp version. I'll let you know when I am done.

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

@janmejay FYI: I'll add e commit to your branch to force newer libfastjson and see how this works out

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

OK, I cannot simply add. Will create a new PR and then let's see what we can mege.

@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

@janmejay please have a look at this result: https://build.rsyslog.com/#/builders/142/builds/5175/steps/4/logs/test-suite_log - there seems to be a problem on ARM platforms.

This is from #4507, which is basically your PR, plus an extra commit from my side. Feel free to cherry-pick it. If possible, I would appreciate if you could squash the end result to a single commit.

Note: some of the CI Platforms still fail due to too-old libfastjson (like Solaris), but that's a different matter. The majority should now work, including arm.

@rgerhards rgerhards modified the milestones: v8.2102, v8.2106 Feb 22, 2021
@rgerhards rgerhards modified the milestones: v8.2106, v8.2108 Jun 14, 2021
@rgerhards
Copy link
Member

removing milestone as this PR looks stalled

@rgerhards rgerhards removed this from the v8.2108 milestone Aug 9, 2021
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.

None yet

2 participants