On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:21:54PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:53:13AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 08:39:25AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:47:30AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > On 02/19/2014 05:18 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > > > > > On (19/02/14 22:03), Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +0100, Lukas
Slebodnik wrote:
> > > > > >>> On (19/02/14 12:37), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:02:23PM +0100, Jakub
Hrozek
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> I realized I made a mistake in the
rebasing above. I
> > > > > >>>>>> fixed that and then needed to do
another manual rebase of
> > > > > >>>>>> these patches atop it. These patches
apply atop the
> > > > > >>>>>> "[SSSD] DEBUG macro refactoring
v6" patches.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> These patches work for me, so ACK.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Pushed to master.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> find_uid-tests failed with these patches on
fedora20.
> > > > > >>>
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8367/6548367/build.log
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > Do you have additional patches in this build?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
/builddir/build/SRPMS/sssd-1.11.90-0.20140219.1816.git22a9323._temp.fc20.src.rpm
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > The git hash does not look like anything from master.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Yes, I was testing some patches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I started a koji build
> > > > > >>
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6549081 with
> > > > > >> current master
(4cde267bec52ae1723a125d19439a5c75b47ebb7) which
> > > > > >> is working fine.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > I tried one more time with master and koji works fine.
> > > > > > Unfortunately, I am able to reproduce it locally in mock
:-(
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've seen that happen intermittently as well in mock and
koji. I
> > > > > suspect there may be a bug/race condition in
sd_uid_get_sessions(),
> > > > > but I can't reproduce it consistently (and the DEBUG error
doesn't
> > > > > seem to fire...)
> > > > >
> > > > > A quick look at the code suggests that we're probably
missing a
> > > > > 'return EOK' after '*result = false', though.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll run a couple tests and see if that fixes the issue...
> > > >
> > > > I found another issue related to journald support..if you compile
sssd
> > > > with journald support and run it on the foreground (-i) then the
debug
> > > > messages are still redirected to journal. That seems strange to me,
but
> > > > also in line with what a comment in the code says:
> > > >
> > > > /* If we are not outputting logs to files, we should be
sending them
> > > > * to journald.
> > > > * NOTE: on modern systems, this is where
> > > > * stdout/stderr will end up
> > > >
> > > > So I'm not entirely sure about the expected behaviour, but I
would
> > > > prefer if there was still a way to see the debug messages directly
on
> > > > the console.
> > > >
> > > > I hacked up a patch that also adds a third state where if sssd is
running
> > > > on the foreground even with journald support, then just fprintf is
used.
> > > > See the attachment.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set debug_file = stderr ?
> >
> > I tried to go this way, but it seems actually harder to me..
> >
> > To summarize:
> > with "sssd -f" debug_file should be a log file
> > with "sssd" debug_file should be NULL, indicating journald
> > with "sssd -i", debug_file should be stderr, indicating stderr.
> >
> > The problem is, that we don't pass the "-i" flag down to the
responders
> > and back ends when forking them. So the alternative would be to add
"-i"
> > to sssd_be and all responders, pass the flag to the child processes and
> > only set debug_file to stderr if '-i' is present. If you prefer this
way,
> > I can prepare a patch along these lines.
> >
> > But then we also terminate the process which is running with "-i" if
its
> > stdin goes away, I guess it would be safe to keep this logic since stdin
> > in the child processes is /dev/null already, I just wanted to mention
> > there is a number of cases to test..
>
> Any opinions? I'd like to fix this bug before tagging 1.12.0..
Maybe having an option --debug-to-stdout would be nicer for the child
processes because it fits better to the existing SSSD_DEBUG_OPTS and
will have no additional meaning as -i? For the monitor this option
should be rejected and hidden from the help.
bye,
Sumit
Perhaps..
to clarify, you're suggesting that --debug-to-stdout would be added to
all processes (monitor and child), but only child processes in libexec
would expose it and this option would be used when spawning the child
processes?
I wouldn't like to change the meaning of "-i" for the monitor process,
though..but there we can detect sssd is running on the foreground.