From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 27 3:55:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702E137B400 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 03:55:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lungfish.ntlworld.com ([62.253.148.90]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020127115528.RUNS6966.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@lungfish.ntlworld.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:55:28 +0000 Received: from tuatara.goatsucker.org (tuatara.goatsucker.org [192.168.1.6]) by lungfish.ntlworld.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0RBtQn36471; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:55:27 GMT (envelope-from scott@tuatara.goatsucker.org) Received: (from scott@localhost) by tuatara.goatsucker.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0RBtEG01501; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:55:14 GMT (envelope-from scott) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:55:14 +0000 From: Scott Mitchell To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM, setusercontext, kdm and ports/32273 Message-ID: <20020127115514.A295@localhost> References: <20020126224243.A72777@localhost> <3C534F33.2755EED9@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3C534F33.2755EED9@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:03PM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.5-RC i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@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 26, 2002 at 04:52:03PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Scott Mitchell wrote: > > However, this got me thinking -- is the right solution here to have a PAM > > module that does the setusercontext(), so programs that already know about > > PAM will just work, without needing to know about setusercontext() as well? > > I can see that causing problems with programs (login, xdm, etc.) that > > already understand both mechanisms, but they could always not use this > > hypothetical pam_setusercontext module, right? > > > > So, is this a worthwhile thing to have? I'm happy to either write the PAM > > module or fix kdm, but I'd rather not waste my time learning about PAM > > internals if people think this would be a pointless exercise. > > No. THis is a bad idea. Fix KDM instead. OK, but could you explain *why* you think it's a bad idea? Scott -- =========================================================================== Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines" scott.mitchell@mail.com | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message