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. :)
> 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?
Do you accept just whitespace changes or do you want me also to replace
the ? expressions with ifs and variable assignments?
[...]
> + if (_pam_audit_writelog(pamh, audit_fd, type, message,
grantors?grantors:"?", retval) < 0)
And this one, too.
_______________________________________________
Pam-developers mailing list
Pam-developers(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/pam-developers
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)