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. :)
So, I'll rather change the patch so there is no possibility of
the
message not having the grantor field than remove the grantor=? case
completely.
OK, maybe call it "/?", so that the name will be distinguishable from
supported module names?
The attached patch should contain this change and all the other
minor
corrections.
[...]
+ if (asprintf(&buf, "PAM:%s%s%s", message,
grantors?" grantors=":"", grantors?grantors:"") >= 0) {
Could you kindly make this expression more readable, please?
[...]
+ if (_pam_audit_writelog(pamh, audit_fd, type, message,
grantors?grantors:"?", retval) < 0)
And this one, too.
--
ldv