From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 6 08:11:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7950516A4BF for ; Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD2E43FDD for ; Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:11:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h86FBMuo065336; Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:11:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from kargl@localhost)h86FBLep065335; Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:11:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven G. Kargl" Message-Id: <200309061511.h86FBLep065335@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030906120317.GA78469@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Matthew Seaman Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 08:11:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM, X11, and su as a normal user? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:11:23 -0000 Matthew Seaman wrote: > > If all your X sessions are local to you machine (and possibly even if > they aren't), then try setting the DISPLAY variable to :0.0 -- you'll > need to repeat the fun'n'games with xauth to match the new $DISPLAY > setting. Thanks for the hint. I took the rather draconian action of deleting user sgk's .Xauthority file. Then I used xauth to merge in user kargl's entire .Xauthority. This appears to work only if I use "su -l sgk". I guess I'm inheriting something in the environment that X doesn't lik when I use "su sgk". BTW, I had no problems with this until a few months ago. At that point in time /etc/pam.d/system was added to PAM. The cvs log message suggests to me that PAM is somehow involved because it was stated that a misconfigured /etc/pam.d/system could have bad effects on login(1) and su(1). -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/