Le Fri, 17 May 2013 16:30:33 +0100, Colin Watson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I'm concerned about some of the side-effects of moving common-session > the way your patch does. For instance, one likely effect I see is > that if you're using ecryptfs and you have a mailbox in your home > directory (thus presumably updated by something inside your session) > then pam_mail will no longer work properly. (Yes, in the standard > configuration pam_mail will only be looking in /var/mail/, but it's > easily conceivable that somebody might have added a dir= parameter > locally.) The ordering here is pretty delicate, and I'd need a > better reason for moving it than "other PAM services are doing this". > > Wouldn't it be safer to insert pam_loginuid above common-session, but > otherwise leave it where it is? That would indeed be also correct (as long as pam_loginuid is before the include of common-session, if pam_systemd is present in common-session it should be called after pam_loginuid). Cheers Laurent Bigonville -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
