On (20/03/13 13:58), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:46:34PM +0100, Ondrej Kos wrote:
> On 03/15/2013 10:34 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (15/03/13 09:13), Ondrej Kos wrote:
> >>On 03/14/2013 12:58 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>>@@ -151,8 +167,10 @@ void pam_print_data(int l, struct pam_data *pd)
> >>> DEBUG(l, ("tty: %s\n", PAM_SAFE_ITEM(pd->tty)));
> >>> DEBUG(l, ("ruser: %s\n", PAM_SAFE_ITEM(pd->ruser)));
> >>> DEBUG(l, ("rhost: %s\n", PAM_SAFE_ITEM(pd->rhost)));
> >>>- DEBUG(l, ("authtok type: %d\n",
sss_authtok_get_type(&pd->authtok)));
> >>>- DEBUG(l, ("newauthtok type: %d\n",
sss_authtok_get_type(&pd->newauthtok)));
> >>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> >>>+ ("authtok type: %d\n",
sss_authtok_get_type(pd->authtok)));
> >>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> >>>+ ("newauthtok type: %d\n",
sss_authtok_get_type(pd->newauthtok)));
> >>> DEBUG(l, ("priv: %d\n", pd->priv));
> >>> DEBUG(l, ("cli_pid: %d\n", pd->cli_pid));
> >>> }
> >>
> >>The patches look good to me, just please use the debug level variable
> >>here, not hardcoded level.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Ondrej Kos
> >
> >Thanks.
> >I am attaching updated patches.
> >
> >LS
> >
> >
> >
> Ack from me
>
> Ondra
The second patch no longer applies on the current master, can you rebase
it?
I am attaching rebased patches.
LS