On Čt, 2016-06-30 at 14:06 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
sorry for beeing late, was on conferences and didn't found the time to answer...
On Wed, Jun 15, Tomas Mraz wrote:
diff --git a/modules/pam_access/pam_access.c b/modules/pam_access/pam_access.c index 3ac1ad0..f3ea35a 100644 --- a/modules/pam_access/pam_access.c +++ b/modules/pam_access/pam_access.c @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ login_access (pam_handle_t *pamh, struct login_info *item) (void) fclose(fp); } else if (errno == ENOENT) { /* This is no error. */
- pam_syslog(pamh, LOG_WARNING, "warning: cannot open %s:
%m",
- pam_syslog(pamh, LOG_INFO, "warning: cannot open %s: %m",
item->config_file); } else { pam_syslog(pamh, LOG_ERR, "cannot open %s: %m", item-
config_file);
I disagree here. The message is warning, so the log level should not be info. Or the message should be adjusted. But, if a user configures pam_access to use a configuration file, and this file does not exist, this should be more than LOG_INFO. That's not a message which is printed regular, it's only printed if the user made a mistake in the configuration. So I wouldn't change this priority.
OK, that makes sense, I will leave it as is.