On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> On 11/28/19 7:55 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote: > > Le 28/11/2019 ? 13:43, Pierre Labastie a ?crit?: > >> Le 27/11/2019 ? 17:40, Bruce Dubbs a ?crit?: > >>> Restarting previous thread as a new discussion. > >>> > >>>> On 2019-11-26 14:56 -0600, Douglas R. Reno wrote: > >>>>>> On 2019-11-26 14:39, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> Also, I am running into an issue I haven't noticed before.? On my > >>>>>> existing system if I try to log in as user lfs with .bash_profile > >>>>>> set, > >>>>>> it automatically starts bash and then puts it into the background. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> # su - lfs > >>>>>> [1]+? Stopped???????????????? su - lfs > >>>>>> # jobs > >>>>>> [1]+? Stopped???????????????? su - lfs > >>>>>> # fg > >>>>>> su - lfs > >>>>>> lfs:~$ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The rules in the book work OK as .bash_profile is not present when > >>>>>> we > >>>>>> initially change to user lfs and then we source > >>>>>> .bash_profile.? That > >>>>>> works. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It could have something to do with PAM and su, but I'm not > >>>>>> sure.? Has > >>>>>> anyone else seen this? > >>> > >>>>> Yes I have, it's happening on Debian 10 and on LFS now. I'm not sure > >>>>> what's causing it > >>>> > >>>> I've seen this on LFS.? Not sure the reason. > >>> > >>> I've investigated this a bit.? The problem is in su after pam is > installed.? I > >>> rebuilt shadow using --without-libpam and copied that to /bin (ensuring it > was > >>> suid).? The our 'su - lfs' then worked perfectly. > >>> > >>> I did some initial trials to see if changing some of the /etc/pam.d/su > >>> configuration items were causing the problem, but changing /etc/pam.d/su > to: > >>> > >>> auth??????????? required??????? pam_permit.so > >>> account???????? required??????? pam_permit.so > >>> session???????? required??????? pam_permit.so > >>> password??????? required??????? pam_permit.so > >>> > >>> still causes putting 'su - lfs' in the background.? This makes me think > the > >>> problem is in su, but it could be something in bash-5. > >> > >> On debian (where I see this problem on a fresh install, but not on an old > (but > >> updated) install), they use su from util-linux. So the problem might not be > su. > >> > >> Note that the bash startup files are the same in both debian installations. > >> > > > > Further investigating, I found that bash's version in debian sid is 5.0.11, > > while it is 5.0.3 on debian 10, and 5.0 on lfs (point versions are just > > available through patches, I think). > > > > So, on an lfs VM, I rebuilt bash with all the patches applied (up to > 5.0.11), > > and now, "su - lfs" works OK... > > > > If you want, I can prepare a consolidated patch and modify the book. > > That would be good, but we still need to address it as a caution in > section 4.4 as some hosts have the problem. > > Looking at the patches, one of the following may be our problem: > > Patch-ID: bash50-005 > > In certain cases, bash optimizes out a fork() call too early and > prevents traps from running. > > Patch-ID: bash50-007 > > Running `exec' when job control was disabled, even temporarily, but > after it had been initialized, could leave the terminal in the wrong > process group for the executed process. > > I suspect patch 7 fixes our specific problem. > > -- Bruce > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > > Do not top post on this list. > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style > While we're updating LFS then, may I suggest two additions to the new system configuration? As Python3 is the LFS default, we should add two aliases/links to python3 and pip3, as the installer does not seem to. Flareon Zulu -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
