[SSSD] [PATCH] Allow more libldap debugging

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Wed Nov 28 12:40:32 UTC 2012


On Wed 28 Nov 2012 02:46:43 AM EST, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:27:03PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:29 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:14:14AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
>>>>>> This patch should not be pushed to master, but I would like to get it
>>>>>> reviewed anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be used to provide a custom build for users experiencing
>>>>>> cases where ldap_search_ext would block (c.f.
>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728343)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>> export SSSD_DEBUG_LDAP_SEARCH="0xffff"
>>>>>> would set LDAP_DEBUG_ANY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The attached patch applies cleanly on the RHEL6.1 branch. I also have a
>>>>>> version that applies on master/1.5 if needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have three things:
>>>>> On line 98 you close the original stderr - this is not a problem, but it
>>>>> is redundant
>>>>>
>>>>> On line 162 you are using strtol and testing that it did not fail. Please
>>>>> consider two possibilities that you haven't considered in your patch:
>>>>> - the function did not fail, but non-zero value remains in errno from
>>>>> previous program run
>>>>> - the env. variable SSSD_DEBUG_LDAP_SEARCH contains empty string (I'm not
>>>>> sure whether it is possible)
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that the patch looks fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, a new patch is attached.
>>>
>>> Looks ok now,
>>> Ack
>>
>> It looks like this patch, although acked was never pushed upstream ?
>> Has it been dropped offline ?
>>
>> Simo.
>>
>> --
>> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>>
>
> See this sentence in my original mail:
>
>> This patch should not be pushed to master, but I would like to
>> get it
>> reviewed anyway.
>>
>> It should be used to provide a custom build for users
>> experiencing
>> cases where ldap_search_ext would block (c.f.
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728343)
>
> So no, it was never pushed to master. It provides a *lot* of debugging
> info and may easily flood the logs. We may want to reconsider the
> submission, but I would do so only if we dedicate one log level to
> low level tracing such as ldb transactions or libldb error output.

That is supposed to be the point of SSSDBG_TRACE_ALL. I realize we're 
not always consistent on that, though.



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list