On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:45:17PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On St, 2014-09-03 at 18:07 +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:33:57PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> [...]
> > Well at least the pam module name cannot be /.so but grantor=/ could be
> > confusing as well. I'll stick with the original grantor=? as supporting
> > module named ?.so is something we do not really have to :).
>
> Well, I've never had a module named ?.so before, but I have it now,
> and it works perfectly well. :)
But should it? What if we rejected such module name explicitly? Would
you accept that?
As we don't pass mod_name to glob(3), fnmatch(3), wordexp(3), etc.,
there is no risk to accept a module named "?.so".
So what would be the rationale for this change?
Does "?.so" look too suspicious for a valid pam module name? :)
--
ldv