On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Kok, Auke-jan H > <auke-jan.h....@intel.com> wrote: >> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Shawn Ferris <shawn.fer...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> #PAM-1.0 >>> auth required pam_unix.so >>> auth required pam_nologin.so >>> account required pam_unix.so >>> password required pam_unix.so >>> session required pam_unix.so >>> session required pam_loginuid.so >>> -session required pam_systemd.so kill-session-processes=1 debug=1 >> >> this needs to be >> >> session optional pam_systemd.so ... > > Changing the entry to "optional" will not fix anything, only hide the > problems...
not really, making it optional allows your system to be usable if something bad happens to pam_systemd.so... pam_systemd.so currently doesn't do anything but "add more stuff" to your shell. Without it, your shells/pam sessions are perfectly usable. Forcing a non-0 return code from pam_systemd.so to be fatal is only going to sit in the way. Right now I don't think the systemd pam code is stable enough to mandate that it all returns normal exit codes, after all, not many people are actually using it at this time, and I just sent a patch for the PAM stuff last week. Auke _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
