On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 07:15:12PM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 10:31:47PM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:36:59PM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote: > [...] > 1. Unitialised 'sessions' variable is a a bug on all systems which leads > to a segfault on some. I'm now tagging this bug as having a patch.
In the absence of any other fixes, my patch for this still stands. But... > 2. elogind not being queried. Is this an elogind issue? Should it give a > different answer to sd_booted() or is this the wrong way to detect the > seat management capability? 'who' does not have this problem - it > somehow queries elogind anyway. Removing the call to sd_booted() and just using the result of sd_get_sessions() is sufficient. I get the correct outcome in this case. Unfortunately we don't then get any runtime fallback to utmp but my guess is working elogind support would be preferred (and should be fixed for trixie). I am not proposing a patch here because it needs attention from someone more familiar with the relevant components. My hunch is that the best plan for trixie is to go straight to calling sd_get_sessions() and not testing sd_booted(). This would then supersede the patch for (1). > procps then resorts to utmp. > > 3. Some (vc) sessions not reported unless running as root, but the non-root > user could read utmp. 'who' does not have this problem but then it > probably didn't resort to reading utmp (see 2 above). This was a mistake - ignore this: the additional session was caused by sudo itself.
