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?