> May be PAM is the de facto standard, but what about those whose do not > like to use PAM on there systems (as they consider them bloated)?
Then we need a lightweight PAM replacement. I've managed to avoid thinking about it too much so far, but if people want to add different auth mechanisms to busybox, this is the way to go. What rubs me the wrong way with PAM is that it requires dynamic linking, since it relies on .so and dlopen() mechanisms. There's no way to have a complete PAM-enabled system with statically linked binaries. With the little amount of thought I've done on it so far, I've concluded that a viable system would have to have executables instead of shared objects as atoms, i.e. the /bin/login program configurably executes into /bin/login-X-mechanism, where X can be passwd, OTP or anything of the kind, and /bin/login-X-mechanism does the X-specific work. -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
