Sorry, perhaps I was unclear in my original description: For the masking
to be effective *both* network-manager and NetworkManager need to be
masked, or NetworkManager.service will start on boot. 'systemctl status
network-manager' will show information about NetworkManager.service so
it seems to
sessreg(1) could also be used for this (in retrospect, it would actually
also work for #870297)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1027805
Title:
logins are not recorded
This was fixed in language-selector, which is what I originally reported
it against. I'm not sure why it's marked as affecting ubuntu-
translations.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to gdm in Ubuntu.
Paul: 'who', 'users' and 'top' all look at utmp. The utmp issue was
fixed already, this concerns wtmp and lastlog ('last' and 'lastlog'
utilities show those records).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
Public bug reported:
After applying the fix for #870297, utmp records are updated correctly
but wtmp is not:
flashman ~ % ssh root@test-precise 'dpkg-query --show lightdm last -n1'
lightdm 1.2.1-0ubuntu1.1
root pts/0 flashman Tue Jul 17 10:32 - 10:32 (00:00)
wtmp begins Fri Jul 13 19:23:13
pam_lastlog updates both wtmp and /var/log/lastlog. I'm not sure whether
anything else actually writes to lastlog; there is no library to do so
(both pam_lastlog and login without PAM seem to handle the file
directly, using the struct from lastlog.h; see eg. libmisc/log.c in the
'shadow' source
The 'last' issue is simple to fix: lp:~lotheac/lightdm/utmpx
Should I propose a merge to lp:ubuntu/precise-proposed/lightdm or
somewhere else?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
Sorry, that should've been lp:~lotheac/lightdm/wtmp_precise -- I'm too
tired.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/870297
Title:
Lightdm logins not being logged in wtmp
The package in precise-proposed works for me.
lightdm 1.2.1-0ubuntu1.1
ltirkkon tty7 2012-07-17 10:33
10:34:34 up 37 min, 1 user, load average: 0.55, 0.53, 0.49
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT
ltirkkon tty7 10:33 37:24 1.13s
Okay. I moved the branch based on ubuntu/precise/lightdm to
lp:~lotheac/lightdm/utmpx_precise and the one based on upstream is
lp:~lotheac/lightdm/utmpx. Upstream doesn't have debian/lightdm.pam
though (since it's packaging stuff), so that should still be merged to
the Ubuntu branch.
--
You
** Branch linked: lp:~lotheac/lightdm/utmpx
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/870297
Title:
Lightdm logins not being logged in wtmp
Status in Light Display Manager:
Sebastien, yeah, that's the issue. I'm working on skipping PAM for user
sessions right now, actually, but it's probably going to be a little
ugly since I'm trying to keep the changes small.
On a side note, does lightdm have an IRC channel this could be discussed
in? I couldn't seem to find a
... sorry, that should be skipping PAM for non-user sessions
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/870297
Title:
Lightdm logins not being logged in wtmp
Status in Light
Ok, now that I've finally figured out how exactly lightdm works in this
regard, I've pushed my changes to lp:~lotheac/lightdm/utmpx.
At first, I was trying to check for XDG_SESSION_CLASS_USER, but it seems
that is never set. The authentication session (which talks to the
greeter) has no class,
Ok, but what about PAM? Greeters should run as the same user lightdm
does, so authentication is already skipped for them (do_authenticate is
false), but do pam_open_session or pam_acct_mgmt make sense? If we skip
pam_open_session for greeters, we can use pam_lastlog for actual user
sessions, but
Robert, but that wouldn't help for wtmp/lastlog, since pam is still
used. Is there a reason it is for greeters, though, and should greeters
really have a consolekit session either? Couldn't we just simply fork
without doing most of the stuff in session_child_run if we're starting a
greeter?
--
I've written a patch that updates utmp and uses pam_lastlog for wtmp. It seems
to work:
root@test-precise:~# w
18:22:27 up 1:16, 2 users, load average: 2.44, 1.03, 0.68
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT
root pts/0remotehost 17:060.00s
I looked into this a bit. There is a pam module that updates lastlog and
wtmp (pam_lastlog(8)), which could be stacked in the lightdm pam config.
It doesn't update utmp, however, and utmp is what w(1) and who(1) look
at -- see the discussion at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
Public bug reported:
Steps to reproduce:
service lightdm reload
Expected:
lightdm reloads configuration without exiting
Actual:
lightdm exits, taking the X server with it, killing any user session
Even if config refresh isn't supported, lightdm should not quit when it
receives SIGHUP, or
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 877766 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/877766
Attached patch fixes this issue by changing directory after (not before)
changing uid.
** Patch added: chdir-after-setuid.patch
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 877766 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/877766
Sorry, missed that this bug is a duplicate (and that the other bug
already has a fix the comments).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to
21 matches
Mail list logo
