Your message dated Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:51:31 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-nagios-devel] Bug#425137: check_ldap fails to report
actual LDAP errors
has caused the Debian Bug report #425137,
regarding check_ldap fails to report actual LDAP errors
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
425137: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=425137
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: nagios-plugins-standard
Version: 1.4.5-1
Hi,
The check_ldap plugin does this:
% /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_ldap -H '<validip>' -b '<validdn>'
Could not bind to the ldap-server
Whereas, tethereal reveals that the message received was:
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
LDAP Message, Bind Result
Message Id: 1
Message Type: Bind Result (0x01)
Message Length: 64
Response To: 4
Time: 0.000067000 seconds
Result Code: protocolError (0x02)
Matched DN: (null)
Error Message: historical protocol version requested, use LDAPv3 instead
Now, why didn't check_ldap communicate that? Because it has this
in the code (plugins/check_ldap.c):
/* bind to the ldap server */
if (ldap_bind_s (ld, ld_binddn, ld_passwd, LDAP_AUTH_SIMPLE) !=
LDAP_SUCCESS) {
/*ldap_perror(ld, "ldap_bind"); */
printf (_("Could not bind to the ldap-server\n"));
return STATE_CRITICAL;
}
How hard was it to put that ldap_perror() string in the printf'ed
error message? :(
A quick grep for ldap_perror shows that there are other occurences of the
same problem in the same file.
Please fix this. TIA.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.4.10-1
Hi Josip,
On Thursday, 15. October 2009, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:03:40PM +0200, Jan Wagner wrote:
> > I'm not convinced, that raising the verbose level (making plugins output
> > longer) is, what our users really want since it changes the recent
> > behavior of the checks drastically. In my opinion the local administrator
> > should define additional checks, if the long output is needed.
>
> The package already ships several variations of command definitions,
> there's no reason not to ship another few...?
>
> > Anyways ... maybe you just add the "-v" in the end of your check command
> > argument? Isn't that working?
>
> It does, disregarding the ordering bug that I mentioned earlier.
instead of adding more and more specialized command definitions, I would like
to ship/stay with more generalised ones. So I'm closing the bug, if think,
feel free to reopen the bug and tag it as wishlist.
With kind regards, Jan.
--
Never write mail to <[email protected]>, you have been warned!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE
Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--- End Message ---
