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

Re: yet more pam config file questions



On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 04:32:21PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   can anyone explain the rationale behind the "pam_permit"
> > lines in, for instance, the /etc/pam.d/up2date file in red hat
> > 7.3?
> 
> > #%PAM-1.0
> > auth       sufficient	/lib/security/pam_rootok.so
> > auth       required	/lib/security/pam_stack.so service=system-auth
> > session    required	/lib/security/pam_permit.so
> > session    optional	/lib/security/pam_xauth.so
> > account    required	/lib/security/pam_permit.so
> 
> >   as i understand it, pam_permit.so always returns success, so what
> > does it add to this file?
> 
> It ensures that a failure in pam_xauth doesn't cause the session to
> abort.

ok, i think i see why that is.  according to the docs, the only time
something with a control flag of "optional" is necessary for 
authentication is if *no* *other* module of that module type
has either succeeded or failed.  if the pam_xauth.so was the
only "session" module type and it failed, that would mean an
overall failure.  so putting in the session permit line just
guarantees that, even if pam_xauth.so failed, you'd still get
an overall success.  is that how it works?

in that case, though, why is there a single permit line for
the "account" module type?  the same logic surely doesn't hold
here.  so i'm still a mite confused.

rday





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