[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: pam_password.c question
- From: Pavel Kankovsky <peak kerberos troja mff cuni cz>
- To: pam-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: pam_password.c question
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:27:23 +0100 (MET)
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Katy Burns wrote:
> I am tempted to omit the preliminary check in my port of the
> framework, but would like to understand the implications before doing
> so.
I think the idea behind the two passes is to minimize the risk of a
failure in the middle of the stack that would lead to an inconsistent
state: some tokens would be updated while the rest would not. Of course,
such an approach cannot eliminate this risk completely.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"NSA GCHQ KGB CIA nuclear conspiration war weapon spy agent... Hi Echelon!"
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[]