Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-08 Thread DJ Lucas
DJ Lucas wrote: > Just a thought, but if you have the copy of login.defs, that could be > used to extract the original default path as it might have already been > modified by the user. > Changes comitted in r4900. Needs merged to 6.1 branch. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-07 Thread DJ Lucas
Randy McMurchy wrote: > > DJ, please provide examples of what you want to do to fix the PATH > issue. I have an /etc/profile set up which installs a base PATH. > Each user has a .bashrc which sources /etc/profile. Root's .bashrc > also sets up /sbin and /usr/sbin. And, though I'm not sure it come

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-07 Thread Greg Schafer
Randy McMurchy wrote: > I simply don't see any of these PATH issues. I'm sure it is because > of the way I have things set up, Yes. If you lose your .bashrc (or other startup) files you'll likely see the problems. > I can't see these issues really being any different > from 4.0.9 to 4.0.11.1 (PA

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-07 Thread Randy McMurchy
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 18:31 CST: > Yes, it should be required by 'session' not 'auth'. _Needs_ to be > changed only in /etc/pam.d/su, but to be proper, even though auth will > always occur for login, it should be changed there too. Could you outline what you are talking about by

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-07 Thread DJ Lucas
ECI wrote: >>> I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently >> >>upgraded >> PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev >> >>book >> and have a problem with su and PATH variable. >>> >>> >>>This issue was recently discovered and a bug ha

RE: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-05 Thread ECI
> > > > > >>I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently > upgraded > >>PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev > book > >>and have a problem with su and PATH variable. > > > > > > This issue was recently discovered and a bug has already been ent

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-04 Thread DJ Lucas
DJ Lucas wrote: > > > I do, in that we take away the default bash path with shadow, but adding > in PAM removes the shadow path that was set previously. It's just wrong > to change the (expected) path without warning the user. > Ugh..I need to clarify my thoughts before I hit send I was r

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-04 Thread DJ Lucas
Randy McMurchy wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/04/05 21:10 CST: > > >>As the bug report shows, add >>'PATH DEFAULT=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:... OVERIDE=${PATH}' to >>/etc/security/pam_env.conf to create a valid user path. For a default >>root (superuser) path, create a valid /root/

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-04 Thread DJ Lucas
Randy McMurchy wrote: > ECI wrote these words on 08/04/05 10:04 CST: > > >>I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently upgraded >>PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev book >>and have a problem with su and PATH variable. > > > This issue w

Re: PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-04 Thread Randy McMurchy
ECI wrote these words on 08/04/05 10:04 CST: > I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently upgraded > PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev book > and have a problem with su and PATH variable. This issue was recently discovered and a bug has

PAM+Shadow looses path for su

2005-08-04 Thread ECI
Hello, I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently upgraded PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev book and have a problem with su and PATH variable. Here it is : 1# su - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~] 1# echo $PATH /bin:/usr/bin:/sbin: <= path