Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:32:01 +0000 From: Scott Mitchell <scott.mitchell@mail.com> To: Volker Stolz <stolz@hyperion.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM, setusercontext, kdm and ports/32273 Message-ID: <20020127213201.D295@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20020127213315.A13272@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>; from stolz@hyperion.informatik.rwth-aachen.de on Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 09:33:15PM %2B0100 References: <20020126224243.A72777@localhost> <3C534F33.2755EED9@mindspring.com> <20020127115514.A295@localhost> <3C53F08E.66E3E4D5@mindspring.com> <20020127131941.C295@localhost> <20020127213315.A13272@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 09:33:15PM +0100, Volker Stolz wrote: > In local.freebsd-hackers, you wrote: > > I'll accept that there might be bad interactions between PAM and > > setusercontext() that I haven't considered. I'm not familiar enough with > > PAM to know what those would be. > > For example you have to think about which flags to pass to > setusercontext() and when to call it. Doing it whit LOGIN_SETALL > *after* pam_setcred is definitely the wrong choice. Yes, I noticed that xdm takes steps to avoid doing that. > > In any case, hacking kdm is considerably less work, so I might as well do > > that first. > > But beware of those convoluted #ifdefs. In gdm, things where much > easier. It is quite an ugly piece of code... hopefully less so after I'm done with it, however :-) Scott -- =========================================================================== Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines" scott.mitchell@mail.com | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020127213201.D295>