Hi,
the following tickets are currently open in the bug tracking system:
#2: I would propose to close that as will not be changed. It's not a defect. #4: ja.po, Tomas, you did update the translations in the past. Either we take it or we should reject it. #14: Same as #4, only for dutch
#5: The available patches contains races and a kernel modification. What should we do with that patch? Reject?
#7: I don't like that patch and the idea, what should we do with this?
#8: I like the idea, I will look at the patches
#9: The patch is broken, and I don't like the change of the default behavior, now writing utmp if not specified otherwise. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Should we reject this?
Thorsten
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 14:13 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
the following tickets are currently open in the bug tracking system:
#2: I would propose to close that as will not be changed. It's not a defect.
I agree.
#4: ja.po, Tomas, you did update the translations in the past. Either we take it or we should reject it.
Will look at it.
#14: Same as #4, only for dutch
As well.
#5: The available patches contains races and a kernel modification. What should we do with that patch? Reject?
This is really problematic. Unfortunately there is currently no real resolution. The patch as is is unusable.
#7: I don't like that patch and the idea, what should we do with this?
I would reject this. I think the idea of running full regular Linux distribution inside container is really flawed.
#8: I like the idea, I will look at the patches
OK
#9: The patch is broken, and I don't like the change of the default behavior, now writing utmp if not specified otherwise. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Should we reject this?
Perhaps ask for more info and reasoning?
Also as we clean the tracker, shall we release 1.1.7 soon?
On Thu, Aug 29, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Also as we clean the tracker, shall we release 1.1.7 soon?
Yes, that was my intentention with cleaning up the tracker.
I only lost my notes about the various git commands to do so :( And since it looks like I forgot already the last time to call some commands, what is necessary to mark the current git tree as 1.1.7 release after the "git push" of the 1.1.7 changes?
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 16:51 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Also as we clean the tracker, shall we release 1.1.7 soon?
Yes, that was my intentention with cleaning up the tracker.
I only lost my notes about the various git commands to do so :( And since it looks like I forgot already the last time to call some commands, what is necessary to mark the current git tree as 1.1.7 release after the "git push" of the 1.1.7 changes?
git tag manual can help probably.
On Thu, Aug 29, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Also as we clean the tracker, shall we release 1.1.7 soon?
The tracker looks clean ;)
Anything we should do before 1.1.7? Else I would start preparing Linux-PAM 1.1.7 now.
Thorsten
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 13:37 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Also as we clean the tracker, shall we release 1.1.7 soon?
The tracker looks clean ;)
Anything we should do before 1.1.7? Else I would start preparing Linux-PAM 1.1.7 now.
I'll update the translations. I'll do it now.
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 13:39 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 13:37 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Also as we clean the tracker, shall we release 1.1.7 soon?
The tracker looks clean ;)
Anything we should do before 1.1.7? Else I would start preparing Linux-PAM 1.1.7 now.
I'll update the translations. I'll do it now.
Done, please go ahead with the release.
On Wed, Sep 11, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Done, please go ahead with the release.
Done. www.linux-pam.org is updated, fedorahosted will follow later, I have to leave now.
Thorsten
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Done, please go ahead with the release.
Done. www.linux-pam.org is updated, fedorahosted will follow later, I have to leave now.
Looks like this needs a nudge (last item):
http://www.linux-pam.org/library/
Thorsten
- RGB
-- Richard Guy Briggs rbriggs@redhat.com Senior Software Engineer Kernel Security AMER ENG Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Canada Voice: +1.647.777.2635 Internal: (81) 32635 Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
On Wed, Sep 11, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Done, please go ahead with the release.
Done. www.linux-pam.org is updated, fedorahosted will follow later, I have to leave now.
Looks like this needs a nudge (last item):
Thanks, fixed.
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Done, please go ahead with the release.
Done. www.linux-pam.org is updated, fedorahosted will follow later, I have to leave now.
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tomas Mraz tmraz@redhat.com wrote:
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
Uh? 1.1.7 built fine here.
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On Fri, Sep 13, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tomas Mraz tmraz@redhat.com wrote:
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
Uh? 1.1.7 built fine here.
You are not using SELinux. It only happens with SELinux enabled.
Thorsten
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 14:11 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tomas Mraz tmraz@redhat.com wrote:
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
Uh? 1.1.7 built fine here.
You are not using SELinux. It only happens with SELinux enabled.
And with the ticket #18 I think we should release 1.1.8 soon :(
On Fri, Sep 13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
And with the ticket #18 I think we should release 1.1.8 soon :(
Yes, there are meanwhile too many different "paths" everywhere and the current git doesn't seem to be tested very good. On the otherside, that patch is part of openSUSE 12.3 and nobody reported the problem until today.
My suggestion: let's wait until mid of next week and collect all issues. Afterwards release 1.1.8.
Thorsten
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
And with the ticket #18 I think we should release 1.1.8 soon :(
I think ticket #18 can be closed?
Anything else open, or should I release 1.1.8 today?
Thorsten
On St, 2013-09-18 at 14:07 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
And with the ticket #18 I think we should release 1.1.8 soon :(
I think ticket #18 can be closed?
Anything else open, or should I release 1.1.8 today?
I don't have anything else. So I'd say go ahead.
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 13:09 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tomas Mraz tmraz@redhat.com wrote:
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
Uh? 1.1.7 built fine here.
That's really weird - I committed:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/linux-pam.git/commit/?id=7f9aa8388f19012b6... How could it build for you without this commit?
On Fri, Sep 13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Done, please go ahead with the release.
Done. www.linux-pam.org is updated, fedorahosted will follow later, I have to leave now.
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
Yes, I saw it already, I missed to test with SELinux enabled, because that was not installed on my development system :(
I have two more "fixes" for glibc warnings about using setuid without checking return value.
Ok to commit?
--- modules/pam_unix/pam_unix_acct.c +++ modules/pam_unix/pam_unix_acct.c 2013/09/12 07:19:05 @@ -121,7 +121,12 @@ if (geteuid() == 0) { /* must set the real uid to 0 so the helper will not error out if pam is called from setuid binary (su, sudo...) */ - setuid(0); + if (setuid(0) == -1) { + pam_syslog(pamh, LOG_ERR, "setuid failed: %m"); + printf("-1\n"); + fflush(stdout); + _exit(PAM_AUTHINFO_UNAVAIL); + } }
/* exec binary helper */ --- modules/pam_unix/support.c +++ modules/pam_unix/support.c 2013/09/12 07:20:51 @@ -586,7 +586,10 @@ if (geteuid() == 0) { /* must set the real uid to 0 so the helper will not error out if pam is called from setuid binary (su, sudo...) */ - setuid(0); + if (setuid(0) == -1) { + D(("setuid failed")); + _exit(PAM_AUTHINFO_UNAVAIL); + } }
/* exec binary helper */
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 14:10 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Done, please go ahead with the release.
Done. www.linux-pam.org is updated, fedorahosted will follow later, I have to leave now.
Unfortunately pam_unix does not build due to missing parentheses in pam_unix_passwd.c
Yes, I saw it already, I missed to test with SELinux enabled, because that was not installed on my development system :(
I have two more "fixes" for glibc warnings about using setuid without checking return value.
Ok to commit?
OK
pam-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org