Re: [squid-users] ldap auth

From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@dont-contact.us>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 23:29:38 +0100

Hmm.. that stack trace does not look very helthy.. The line numbers does
not make sense. All those functions certainly cannot all be on the same
line in this "eval.c" file (in fact I know main and checkLDAP is not..
those are in squid_ldap_auth.c).. and where is the arguments? How did
you compile squid_ldap_auth?

Anyway, the only place in squid_ldap_auth where there is a call to
ldap_result2error is when doing searches, so it seems LDAP fails to do
the specified search, and that it also fails to understand why it
failed.

What happens if you try to use ldapsearch to perform the same lookup?

ldapsearch -x -b ou=Development,dc=ldap,dc=squid,dc=com -h ldap uid=jack

Regards
Henrik Nordstrom
Squid Hacker

Jack wrote:
>
> Hello Henrik,
> Thanks
> I done it.This is output shoen hy gdb and backtrace.I am not able to
> understand what it tells
>
> Starting program:
> /usr/local/squid-2.4.STABLE3/auth_modules/LDAP/squid_ldap_auth
> -b ou=Development,dc=ldap,dc=squid,dc=com -f uid=%s ldap
> jack jack
> squid_ldap_auth: error.c:221: ldap_parse_result: Assertion `r != ((void
> *)0)' failed.
>
> Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
> 0x400cd801 in __kill () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
> (gdb) backtrace
> #0 0x400cd801 in __kill () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
> #1 0x400cd5da in raise (sig=6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:27
> #2 0x400ced82 in abort () at ../sysdeps/generic/abort.c:88
> #3 0x400c6cca in __assert_fail () at assert.c:60
> #4 0x40026d26 in ldap_parse_result () at eval.c:41
> #5 0x40026c4f in ldap_result2error () at eval.c:41
> #6 0x08049388 in checkLDAP () at eval.c:41
> #7 0x08049142 in main () at eval.c:41
> #8 0x400bc177 in __libc_start_main (main=0x8048b60 <main>, argc=6,
> ubp_av=0xbffffa8c, init=0x804882c <_init>, fini=0x8049550 <_fini>,
> rtld_fini=0x4000e184 <_dl_fini>, stack_end=0xbffffa7c)
> at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:129
Received on Fri Dec 07 2001 - 16:16:51 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:05:16 MST