[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: pam_password.c question
- From: Andrew Morgan <morgan transmeta com>
- To: pam-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: pam_password.c question
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:27:25 -0800
Its not in the original RFC spec, but in Sun's originial set of manuals:
http://www.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/sun_pam_sm.ps.gz
[Which were kindly donated at some point in the distant past.]
Cheers
Andrew
Katy Burns wrote:
>
> Hi--
>
> I have a question about the following lines in pam_password.c:
>
> int pam_chauthtok(pam_handle_t *pamh, int flags)
> {
> [...]
>
> /* first loop through to check if there will be a problem */
>
> if ((retval = _pam_dispatch(pamh, flags|PAM_PRELIM_CHECK
> , PAM_CHAUTHTOK)) == PAM_SUCCESS) {
> retval = _pam_dispatch(pamh, flags|PAM_UPDATE_AUTHTOK
> , PAM_CHAUTHTOK);
> }
> [...]
>
> return retval;
> }
>
> I am wondering why it is necessary to call _pam_dispatch twice? Is
> this part of the specification?
>
> I am surprised that this double calling is enforced by the framework,
> when some/many modules do not need a separate pass for preliminary
> checks.
>
> I am tempted to omit the preliminary check in my port of the
> framework, but would like to understand the implications before doing
> so.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --kt (ktb@sgi.com)
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe pam-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[]