From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 6 16:53:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17E437B416 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g070rLm41249; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:53:22 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:53:16 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" To: Mark Murray Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Question to PAM hackers Message-ID: <20020107005314.GD41085@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20020104075611.GA11377@nagual.pp.ru> <200201051121.g05BL9V52739@grimreaper.grondar.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200201051121.g05BL9V52739@grimreaper.grondar.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 13:21:08 +0200, Mark Murray wrote: > > Is there a way (i.e. interface function) to check if particular PAM module > > loaded, inside application? > > No. Annd nor should there be. The authentication process with PAM means > that the authentication policy (including which modules are loaded) are > none of the applications damn business :-) Chaining as concept is poor when conditionalized modules handling is needed. F.e. currently it is impossible to write proper pam_opie and pam_unix interaction using just chaining even they appearse always in fixed order. As workaround pam_unix forced to be removed and handled by application itself. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message