notfound 597225 1.1.1-6.1 thanks On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 03:57:35PM +0300, Teodor wrote: > Package: libpam-modules > Version: 1.1.1-6.1 > Severity: normal
> > I have tested and confirmed that this is fixed in squeeze. I believe the > > actual fix was the change in version 1.0.1-9 to fix Ubuntu bug #314222, > > describing a similar issue as this one. Marking this bug as resolved. > Actually, it appears to not be fixed in squeeze. I was looking in the > changelog to entries related to 'pam_limits' and found contradictory > documentation and behaviour: > 1) man 8 pam_limits says "Users of uid=0 are affected by this limits" > 2) man 5 limits.conf adds this general note on PAM: > NOTE: group and wildcard limits are not applied to the root user. To > set a limit for the root user, this field must contain the literal > username root. The manpage appears to be inaccurate, then and needs fixing; but that's entirely separate from this bug report, which was about wildcard nofile limits not being applied *at all*. > And in practice this is the only way to make 'nofile' limit work, by > duplicating the wildcard limit for 'root' (see my config below). Correct. This is a Debian divergence from upstream that's been carried by the pam package for more than a decade. We should have a conversation about whether we want root to continue to be treated specially by pam_limits given that this has never been upstreamed, but that's not a "bug" per se, and again is not the behavior that this bug report was filed about. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
