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 account
>>expiration warning for sshd' requires pam_service to be sshd, but I can
>>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.
So as said earlier it might be best to replace it with a generic service
name which is nowhere used in the main code.
>And if there will be test for "Printing account expiration warning"
>Then the name of service should be explicitelly set to sshd.
>sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel mailing list