Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 22:53:22 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Last NSS commit is very dangerous Message-ID: <20040401185320.GA76718@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040401163258.GA63164@madman.celabo.org> References: <20040331133132.GA2106@nagual.pp.ru> <20040331183921.GA14949@madman.celabo.org> <20040401160429.GA3346@nagual.pp.ru> <20040401163258.GA63164@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:32:58AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > But previous NSS variant can handle this unreadable > > /etc/nsswitch.conf nicely, probably using defaults. > > I believe you are mistaken. Are you 100% certain that revision 1.10 of > nsdispatch.c falls back to defaults if /etc/nsswitch.conf exists but is In new version you add + result = errno; if file can't be opened. I think this makes difference. > ``unreadable /etc/nsswitch.conf'' is a different situation than ``no > /etc/nsswitch.conf''. The latter means ``gimme the defaults''. The > former means ``disable NSS''. You are probably right, I have no strong preferences here. It depends on other system's historic nsswitch.conf behaviour and it will be better, if unreadable case will be documented in nsswitch.conf(5). Currently we have: "If, for any reason, nsswitch.conf doesn't exist, or it has missing or corrupt entries, nsdispatch(3) will default to an entry of ``files'' for the requested database." Which not covers "unreadable" case. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040401185320.GA76718>