From: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 01:31:24 +0000 (+1300)
Subject: ldb_debug: Fix binary data in debug log
X-Git-Tag: ldb-1.3.2~23
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c5a14306c82f702f4788faea262c9ec6ade584cb;p=thirdparty%2Fsamba.git

ldb_debug: Fix binary data in debug log

When duplicate objects were added, the GUID was printed in the debug log
The GUID was not escaped and therefore displayed as binary content.

This patch splits out the duplicate DN creation error and the duplicate
GIUD error.  Duplicate DN's are a normal event and don't require debug
logging.

BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13185

Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
---

diff --git a/lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_index.c b/lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_index.c
index f2fce42eac7..99fef23662f 100644
--- a/lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_index.c
+++ b/lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_index.c
@@ -1820,28 +1820,67 @@ static int ltdb_index_add1(struct ldb_module *module,
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * Check for duplicates in unique indexes and for the @IDXDN
-	 * DN -> GUID record
+	 * Check for duplicates in the @IDXDN DN -> GUID record
+	 *
+	 * This is very normal, it just means a duplicate DN creation
+	 * was attempted, so don't set the error string or print scary
+	 * messages.
+	 */
+	if (list->count > 0 &&
+	    ldb_attr_cmp(el->name, LTDB_IDXDN) == 0) {
+		talloc_free(list);
+		return LDB_ERR_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Check for duplicates in unique indexes
 	 */
 	if (list->count > 0 &&
 	    ((a != NULL
 	      && (a->flags & LDB_ATTR_FLAG_UNIQUE_INDEX ||
-		 (el->flags & LDB_FLAG_INTERNAL_FORCE_UNIQUE_INDEX))) ||
-	     ldb_attr_cmp(el->name, LTDB_IDXDN) == 0)) {
+		  (el->flags & LDB_FLAG_INTERNAL_FORCE_UNIQUE_INDEX))))) {
 		/*
 		 * We do not want to print info about a possibly
 		 * confidential DN that the conflict was with in the
 		 * user-visible error string
 		 */
-		ldb_debug(ldb, LDB_DEBUG_WARNING,
-			  __location__ ": unique index violation on %s in %s, "
-			  "conficts with %*.*s in %s",
-			  el->name, ldb_dn_get_linearized(msg->dn),
-			  (int)list->dn[0].length,
-			  (int)list->dn[0].length,
-			  list->dn[0].data,
-			  ldb_dn_get_linearized(dn_key));
-		ldb_asprintf_errstring(ldb, __location__ ": unique index violation on %s in %s",
+
+		if (ltdb->cache->GUID_index_attribute == NULL) {
+			ldb_debug(ldb, LDB_DEBUG_WARNING,
+				  __location__
+				  ": unique index violation on %s in %s, "
+				  "conficts with %*.*s in %s",
+				  el->name, ldb_dn_get_linearized(msg->dn),
+				  (int)list->dn[0].length,
+				  (int)list->dn[0].length,
+				  list->dn[0].data,
+				  ldb_dn_get_linearized(dn_key));
+		} else {
+			/* This can't fail, gives a default at worst */
+			const struct ldb_schema_attribute *attr
+				= ldb_schema_attribute_by_name(
+					ldb,
+					ltdb->cache->GUID_index_attribute);
+			struct ldb_val v;
+			ret = attr->syntax->ldif_write_fn(ldb, list,
+							  &list->dn[0], &v);
+			if (ret == LDB_SUCCESS) {
+				ldb_debug(ldb, LDB_DEBUG_WARNING,
+					  __location__
+					  ": unique index violation on %s in "
+					  "%s, conficts with %s %*.*s in %s",
+					  el->name,
+					  ldb_dn_get_linearized(msg->dn),
+					  ltdb->cache->GUID_index_attribute,
+					  (int)v.length,
+					  (int)v.length,
+					  v.data,
+					  ldb_dn_get_linearized(dn_key));
+			}
+		}
+		ldb_asprintf_errstring(ldb,
+				       __location__ ": unique index violation "
+				       "on %s in %s",
 				       el->name,
 				       ldb_dn_get_linearized(msg->dn));
 		talloc_free(list);