Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:58:49 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_opieaccess pam_opieaccess.c Message-ID: <20020124215848.GA87344@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20020124215212.GC87013@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200201241618.g0OGIi276333@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020124212631.GA86757@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpadv3bf8x.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020124215212.GC87013@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 00:52:13 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > > I did it this way because opieaccessfile() always accepts an empty > > (not NULL) host, but you're right. > > Hmm, yes. I think they do improper thing here always accepting "" since > non-PAMed "ftp localhost" (see opieftpd.c) f.e. just not use this empty > host part, so local.host.name addition to /etc/opieaccess needed in any > case. I.e. accepting empty host does nothing for services which fills > remote host. It seems they try to just cover seamless integration for > programs that forget to set remote host. I mean, in that case your variant is right, but will be better to do it that way: if (rhost == NULL) rhost = ""; Because they can change "" acceptance in the opieaccessfile() in the later OPIE versions. I.e. better way is not repeat current OPIE functionality, on upper level, but let OPIE itself decide. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020124215848.GA87344>