> Fix me if I'm wrong.
> Correct solution will be remove CLOSE_SESSION conditions and use this code
> uncondionaly if shadow was configured with PAM enabled (?)
Hmm, well, I'm not sure anyone suggested such a drastic change. This
could be likely to inadvertently change some behaviour here or ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 10:35:46PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I have to admit that you left me lost somewhere but,Âwell, please
> don't try to re-explainthis goes far above my own head...:-)
In short: most PAM applications need to have
> Now having CLOSE_SESSION set to "no" seems to be a
> total disaster, isn't it? ;)
I have to admit that you left me lost somewhere but, well, please
don't try to re-explainthis goes far above my own head...:-)
>
> > > With no more input, I will probably just change the setting in
> > > pos
Hi!
> In fact, having CLOSE_SESSION set to "no" results in
> pam_close_session not being called,
ALSO: this results in pam_end _not being called_ too!
The latter will cause "PAM data cleanup callbacks" (PDCC)
being _not run_ (for description of PDCC see pam_set_data
in /usr/share/doc/libpam-doc/
Hi!
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 09:14:58AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I'm ready to follow the bug submitter's advice, with Bastian K. advice
> as well but I'm indeed not very competent about this.
If Debian used pam_xauth, for example, the setting
would already have been changed to be "yes" by
tags 163635 moreinfo
retitle 163635 [EXPERT] CLOSE_SESSION set to no in /etc/login.defs
thanks
Shadow maintainers,
Anyone with a motivated advice about this bug :
http://bugs.debian.org/163635?
I'm ready to follow the bug submitter's advice, with Bastian K. advice
as well but I'm indeed not very
6 matches
Mail list logo
