On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:11:26AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 08:58:58AM +0100, Dr. Markus Waldeck wrote: > > > What version pam?
> > I use unstable with the default configuration files. > The default configuration files don't include any limits.conf entries. > Please send all the relevant files, except perhaps conffiles for which > the checksum matches that in dpkg -s. > > Your modules and runtime package is not update to date! > Ok, I upgraded them and found that libpam-modules/unstable seems to be > the cause. > PAM people: should the bug be reassigned This bug claims that "sudo" doesn't get the ulimit values from /etc/security/limits.conf. This is completely unreproducible for me, for sudo or any other service. Why do you think this is a PAM bug? (For that matter, why do you think there *is* a bug?) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep mootest /etc/security/limits.conf mootest hard cpu 800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ulimit -t 100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ulimit -t 100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo -u mootest -s [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ulimit -t 48000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ exit > (and actually merged with #404836)? Huh? That's a bug about one particular limit that PAM is known to not reset the defaults for. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
