Bug 707078 - obsolete (and uninitialized) variable ignore_schedd_limit is being used in place of ignore_submitter_limit
Summary: obsolete (and uninitialized) variable ignore_schedd_limit is being used in pl...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise MRG
Classification: Red Hat
Component: condor
Version: 2.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
medium
Target Milestone: 2.0.1
: ---
Assignee: Erik Erlandson
QA Contact: Luigi Toscano
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 723887
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-05-23 22:34 UTC by Erik Erlandson
Modified: 2011-09-07 16:41 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: condor-7.6.2-0.1
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Cause: Inner negotiation loop called with an obsolete and uninitialized stack variable. Consequence: Depending on value of uninitialized stack memory, there is potential for either incorrectly ignoring submitter limits when limits should be respected, or conversely obeying submitter limits when they are expected to be ignored. Fix: Obsolete variable was removed and proper parameter to the inner negotiation loop was restored. Result: Guaranteed proper behavior regarding submitter limits is restored.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-09-07 16:41:18 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2011:1249 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.0 security, bug fix and enhancement update 2011-09-07 16:40:45 UTC

Description Erik Erlandson 2011-05-23 22:34:19 UTC
Description of problem:
the negotiate() function is being called with obsolete variable ignore_schedd_limit, which is uninitialized.   It should be using ignore_submitter_limit.


How reproducible:
ignore_schedd_limit is uninitialized -- how reproducible is undetermined.

Steps to Reproduce:
NOTE: Should only ignore submitter limits on 1st spin of pie, and if considering preemption.

Two possible repros:
1) false-pos (ignore submitter limits when shouldn't):
ignoring limits when consider-preemption is false
ignoring limits on spin-2 or higher

2) false-neg (should ignore submitter limits, but does not)
obeying the limits on first spin, and when consider-preemption is true.

Comment 1 Erik Erlandson 2011-05-23 23:31:28 UTC
Upstream fix (7.7/master)
https://condor-wiki.cs.wisc.edu/index.cgi/chngview?cn=21957

Attached to upstream ticket:
https://condor-wiki.cs.wisc.edu/index.cgi/tktview?tn=2054,0

Comment 2 Erik Erlandson 2011-05-25 22:10:32 UTC
Fixed upstream on V7_6-branch.

Comment 6 Luigi Toscano 2011-07-21 18:01:56 UTC
The variable ignore_schedd_limit is not used anymore when the negotiate() function is invoked, and the correct ignore_submitter_limit is used instead. ignore_schedd_limit itself has been removed.

Verified by source code inspection, condor-7.6.3-0.2 for RHEL5 and RHEL6.

Comment 7 Erik Erlandson 2011-07-25 22:30:01 UTC
    Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    New Contents:
Cause:
Inner negotiation loop called with an obsolete and uninitialized stack variable.

Consequence:
Depending on value of uninitialized stack memory, there is potential for either incorrectly ignoring submitter limits when limits should be respected, or conversely obeying submitter limits when they are expected to be ignored.

Fix:
Obsolete variable was removed and proper parameter to the inner negotiation loop was restored.

Result:
Guaranteed proper behavior regarding submitter limits is restored.

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2011-09-07 16:41:18 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-1249.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.