Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:33:27 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Step5, pam_opie OPIE auth fix for review Message-ID: <20020121133326.GA35793@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <xzp4rlfzwbf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzpvgdw1sqp.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020121000446.GB27206@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpn0z81rrr.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020121002557.GB27831@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpelkk1qnb.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020121004906.GA28231@nagual.pp.ru> <xzp665w1otd.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020121025009.GA30673@nagual.pp.ru> <xzp8zarzwxm.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <xzp4rlfzwbf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 14:07:48 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> writes: > > Umm, you can't use opiechallenge() for that. You're not supposed to > > call opiechallenge() without also calling opieverify() (plus, I think > > opiechallenge() "consumes" a challenge). Use opielookup() instead. > > Even better, opie_haskey() (which is a wrapper around opielookup()). > New patch attached. Yes, this patch works as expected, but I doubt about opie_haskey() status. It looks like non-standard FreeBSD addition since it is in the local opieextra.c file and not in contrib/opie. If you care about machine independance, better use opielookup() directly. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020121133326.GA35793>