[SSSD] [PATCH] Two patches with more debugging for the LDAP provider
Lukas Slebodnik
lslebodn at redhat.com
Fri Jul 18 14:52:52 UTC 2014
On (18/07/14 16:23), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:14:58PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (18/07/14 15:52), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I was trying to help a user who had problems with the AD provider and
>> >realized I had hard time following what exact server are we searching at
>> >the time and, because we hit a referral, where the referral pointed to.
>> >
>> >I wrote the two attached patches. I'm OK with keeping them in my local
>> >tree, but if other developers agree, maybe we can include them upstream
>> >as well.
>>
>> >From 10edfd72516e7c1ac24b3ebe148825d12325e04e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com>
>> >Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:04:28 +0200
>> >Subject: [PATCH 1/2] LDAP: Print referrals for debugging purposes
>
>[...]
>
>> >@@ -1383,6 +1385,13 @@ static void sdap_get_generic_ext_done(struct sdap_op *op,
>> > sss_ldap_err2string(result), result,
>> > errmsg ? errmsg : "no errmsg set");
>> >
>> >+ if (refs) {
>> I thought you prefer refs != NULL
>> http://blog.cryptomilk.org/2013/03/28/writing-and-reading-code/
>
>Fixed, I admit I copied this code from ldapsearch.c
>
>>
>> >+ for (i = 0; refs[i]; i++) {
>> >+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_LIBS, "Ref: %s\n", refs[i]);
>> >+ }
>> >+ ldap_memvfree((void **) refs);
>> >+ }
>
>> >From 8b1ad7a4797b941d8d35700c7a5558f3362ba758 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com>
>> >Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:37:34 +0200
>> >Subject: [PATCH 2/2] LDAP: Dump LDAP server IP address with a high DEBUG level
>> >
>> >---
>> > src/providers/ldap/sdap_async.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async.c b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async.c
>> >index 50e60ff846d9f94bb9f7343246429f1345286719..4e91c02b7ba82ad9d1d8500f84906f0e40f74399 100644
>> >--- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async.c
>> >+++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async.c
>> >@@ -1083,6 +1083,41 @@ static errno_t add_to_deref_reply(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
>> > return EOK;
>> > }
>> >
>> >+void sdap_print_server(struct sdap_handle *sh)
>> It would be better to have this function static.
>
>Done.
>
>>
>> >+{
>> >+ int ret;
>> >+ int fd;
>> >+ struct sockaddr_storage ss;
>> >+ socklen_t ss_len = sizeof(ss);
>> >+ char ip[NI_MAXHOST];
>> >+
>> >+ if (!(debug_level & SSSDBG_TRACE_INTERNAL)) {
>> and one more time
>> http://blog.cryptomilk.org/2013/03/28/writing-and-reading-code/
>> I couldn't resist :-) :-) :-)
>
>I don't agree with that blog post completely, I think using "!" if you
>really mean boolean false is OK. I dislike "if (!ptr)" as a way of
>saying "if (ptr == NULL)".
>+ if (!(debug_level & SSSDBG_TRACE_INTERNAL)) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
type of this expression is integer and not boolean :-)
LS
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list