The user may have some invalid prints saved (like the ones enrolled with
fprintd 1) in the storage, this lead to list such prints as enrolled but
they're actually not valid.
So load the prints to ensure that those are of the valid type instead of
just discovering them.
We may make just store.discover_prints to be aware of this, but this
would break some assumptions we do in tests, so better to go this way.
We may want to be able to load the user prints to check whether they
are usable, so add an utility function for this.
And use it also in load_all_prints().
It might make sense to push this into the storage layer. But, overall,
it is OK to live here, and if we do make changes on the storage layer we
probably want to change more than just this.
If something under the hood failed with a generic device error we'd just
mark the PAM module not available, this is probably too much as it may
just be due to a device temporary error.
So make it stop but allow the loading system to retry with it
Loading saved prints may lead to an error if they were stored long time
ago and so they're using a wrong format.
In such case we list the prints as available even though they are really
not, so the PAM module won't return PAM_AUTHINFO_UNAVAIL as in the
no-prints case but PAM_USER_UNKNOWN.
This will lead some auth systems (such as gdm) to keep retrying using
PAM fprintd module, even if it's not really available.
When saving the prints we use g_file_set_contents under the hood and in
case return its error code that is a positive value.
So in such case we don't fail if we have a write failure at the end of
the enrollment.
While we could ensure in file storage to always return a negative value,
it's always better to ensure that is has to be 0 when we didn't get an
error.
Add a test checking for this case.
Since we so far we had no duplicated-check for prints in fprintd an user
may have enrolled the same print for multiple accounts or even for
different fingers, so we need to simulate this case.
Given that fprintd may not allow to enroll duplicated prints soon, it's
better to just copy the storage value so that we simulate a duplicated
enrollment in the past.
Allow to enroll multiple data in a single shot so that we don't have to
do it for each user, and add a test that uses it to match each possible
combination.
Some tests were delaying VerifyStop by not reporting the finger status
in the image driver, we can do the same using sleeps in the virtual
device driver, so let's reimplement such calls
Now that FPrintdVirtualStorageDeviceBaseTest is a
FPrintdVirtualDeviceBaseTest we can implement the needed `send_*`
functions that we use in the tests in order to get easily an interface
that can be used to repeat all the tests we've already written with the
new virtual device.
To do this, we've only to create new test classes that use the
FPrintdVirtualStorageDeviceBaseTest as main base class and that
also implement the test class.
When claiming a device for delete operation we'd not get an error in
case we can claim it but it's not already claimed, so in such case we
should explicitly check that the device has been opened.
When a device has reported the verification status the client should
call VerifyStop to stop the device, however this under the hood may lead
to a premature cancellation, causing the device not to react as expected
in case the finger is still on the sensor or in case it may return to us
some errors that we may want to handle (like the data-missing one).
So, in case we are about to stop the verification and the operation is
still in process, wait for a maximum timeout before proceed to the
cancellation.
However, while waiting, the action may be also cancelled because of a
call to Release() or because the client vanished, and in such case we
have to ensure that the current invocation is saved for being invoked by
stoppable_action_completed() when callback will return. That will also
unset it, and that's a clear indication for us that it has been already
consumed, and thus that we can just return doing nothing else.
Fixes: #100
Some tests may have different behaviors depending on the CPU load when
using parallel tests, so async results could arrive in different order.
Then we need to accept multiple results:
- A specific exception has to happen all the times
- One of the accepted exception has to happen all the times
- No exception or one of the allowed exception may happen
Depending on the test, use one of the possible strategies.
As per GDBus we can now get async calls (from the same client) happening
while we're still processing a previous request, so we need to ensure
that we react properly.
In case we get concurrent requests on EnrollStart/EnrollStop we'd just
continue with the operation, making the first processed request to start
the process and the second to hang (in code before the introduction of
stoppable_action_stop()) or to crash (in the current code).
So in such case we should always check that we're not handling already
the request, by checking priv->current_cancel_invocation value.
Add tests to verify the race.
