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

Re: yet more pam config file questions

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 04:56:02PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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.

The return values for stacks without any "required" or "requisite"
modules isn't defined IIRC (I *think* it's implementation-specific).
Requiring pam_permit.so removes that ambiguity.



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