[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PAM S/Key module



Olaf Kirch writes:
>I solved this by introducing a second module, pam_skey_access, which
>follows the pam_skey module:
...
>Comments?

There's certainly nothing wrong with writing two modules.  You might
consider, as a posible change if it makes sense in context, using a
module argument instead, thus:

auth	sufficient	pam_skey.so
auth	required	pam_skey.so	access

I would tend to assume that if there is code sharing between the two
modules using an argument would be smaller and better; if there is no
code sharing, it's only a little cheaper (the extra memory requirements
for loading an extra library) and then in that case I would make the
decision based on what is easier for you to code and maintain.

michaelkjohnson

"Magazines all too frequently lead to books and should be regarded by the
 prudent as the heavy petting of literature."            -- Fran Lebowitz
 Linux Application Development     http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []