On (04/11/15 18:58), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 11/04/2015 06:41 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>On 11/04/2015 03:02 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>On (04/11/15 14:40), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>Also one of few not yet tested corners of pam_reply() - 'Printing
>>>>expiration warning for sshd' requires pam_service to be sshd, but I
>>>>change when I will write another test (it might happen soon as pcech is
>>>>working on similar change in adjacent code).
>>>That's exactly the reason why the default value should not be sshd.
>>I don't understand why this would be the reason can you elaborate?
>Because a default value should not lead to a code path which handles a
>special case. The general PAM responder test should not run through the
>'sshd' case in pam_reply() only if the service is set explicitly to
>'sshd' this features should be tests.
Sure, but just setting sshd would not lead to execution of this branch AFAIK
at least pam verbosity would be needed to be set. As said before service
value doesn't matter in current test so IMO this patch would only set service
to more sane default however I agree with you that 'generic service name' is
not a bad idea at all.
We spent enormous time with such unimportant patch.
I pushed patch with Sumit's propsal "pam_test_service"
using one-liner rule.