On Tuesday 2011-11-22 10:42, Hanno Böck wrote: >Hi, > >There seems to be a problem with pam_mound and latest sudo: >https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390459 >http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=648698 > >Can you have a look?
.oO( Why do I always have to investigate sudo bugs. ) root@vjng-debian:/home/jengelh# /usr/local/sudo-1.8.2/bin/sudo id [998] pam_mount: library loaded [dlopened] [998] sudo: calling pam_open_session [998] pam_mount: pam_sm_open_session uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root) [997] sudo: calling pam_close_session root@vjng-debian:/home/jengelh# /usr/local/sudo-1.8.3/bin/sudo id [1000] pam_mount: library loaded [1001] sudo: calling pam_open_session [1001] pam_mount: pam_sm_open_session uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root) [1000] sudo: calling pam_close_session [1000] pam_mount: pam_sm_close_session: opener pid was 0 [1000] pam_mount: library unloaded [dlclosed] One does not simply walk into Mordor^W^W^W distribute your PAM functions calls across different processes by the moon phase. Therefore, pam_mount has no state in one process, and it is only reasonable that pam_mount.so screams out loud about "Config.user == NULL". And why in all world does sudo use fork(2) anyway? su(8) can completely do without such and so does not even run into the problem of asymmetric calling of the stack. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
