Launchpad has imported 11 comments from the remote bug at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44408.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-01-03T05:08:01+00:00 Joudanzuki wrote: Apparently, this (new?) login component has completely changed the (unwritten?) agreements about what users should be filtered out of the user list in the login dialog. Traditionally, when presenting a list of users to choose from when logging in, a user whose login shell is specified as /bin/nologin will not be included in the list. Having a filter list as an extra method is okay (see bug 41908), but it's not the traditional method, and silently changing the behavior is a potential security risk. If, in keeping with the (in my opinion, ill-advised) shift to capabilities, it is deemed desirable to go with a configurable lower limit on numeric user ids and a filter list, there should at least be some serious public discussion (as, on distro user lists) before the change is implemented, and there should be an incubation period during which both the filter list and the nologin shell are recognized. I personally would prefer the traditional behavior be kept. There is no reason, on desktops or servers, for /bin/nologin users to be offered the opportunity to log in, in most cases. For those that prefer a separate filter list, the configuration file could be allowed to override the traditional behavior on a per-user basis, whether to show or hide. (Reference bug 41908.) If the change was made to accommodate wireless carriers who might be deluded about the ability to "keep the platform more secure" by preventing all non-graphical logins, it would be better to add a /bin/guiloginonly default shell value. Filtering on lack of specified password is a good option, but is also contrary to traditional administration techniques. If such behavior is to be included, it should be set or unset in the configuration files, as well. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-02-14T00:40:12+00:00 Matthias Clasen wrote: Looks like the code to do nologin filtering got lost when moving things from gdm to the accountsservice. We should bring it back. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-07T11:30:13+00:00 Bastien Nocera wrote: Created attachment 58111 Don't use hard-coded minimal UID to exclude users We should instead filter on the login shell used. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-07T11:37:23+00:00 Bastien Nocera wrote: Created attachment 58113 Filter users on nologin rather than minimal UID Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-07T11:38:53+00:00 Bastien Nocera wrote: Requires the patch from: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47045 but you might be able to merge it in if you're not interested in the transient correctness ;) Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-07T13:46:05+00:00 Matthias Clasen wrote: Comment on attachment 58111 Don't use hard-coded minimal UID to exclude users Review of attachment 58111: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure I agree with this one. Yes, we should filter on the login shell. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the minimal uid Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-07T13:47:34+00:00 Matthias Clasen wrote: Comment on attachment 58111 Don't use hard-coded minimal UID to exclude users Review of attachment 58111: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Just looking at my /etc/passwd, there's odd things like sync and halt, which are not /sbin/nologin Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-12T18:36:42+00:00 Bastien Nocera wrote: (In reply to comment #5) <snip> > Not sure I agree with this one. > Yes, we should filter on the login shell. But that doesn't mean that we should > ignore the minimal uid The minimal UID is only useful to create new users, nothing else. In fact it creates problems with perfectly normal administration policies (like adding new users should start from UID 5000, but users local to the machine get 500 and above, for example). (In reply to comment #6) > Just looking at my /etc/passwd, there's odd things like sync and halt, which > are not /sbin/nologin They're already ignored, see the daemon->priv->exclusions hash_table that has every item in default_excludes[] added. The same scheme work for GDM in the past. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-12T18:37:05+00:00 Bastien Nocera wrote: (In reply to comment #5) <snip> > Not sure I agree with this one. > Yes, we should filter on the login shell. But that doesn't mean that we should > ignore the minimal uid The minimal UID is only useful to create new users, nothing else. In fact it creates problems with perfectly normal administration policies (like adding new users should start from UID 5000, but users local to the machine get 500 and above, for example). (In reply to comment #6) > Just looking at my /etc/passwd, there's odd things like sync and halt, which > are not /sbin/nologin They're already ignored, see the daemon->priv->exclusions hash_table that has every item in default_excludes[] added. The same scheme work for GDM in the past. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-24T15:07:59+00:00 Matthias Clasen wrote: Comment on attachment 58111 Don't use hard-coded minimal UID to exclude users Review of attachment 58111: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, after rereading the docs for UID_MIN, I agree now. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-26T19:41:04+00:00 Rstrode wrote: I've pushed this in now with a few changes to also catch /bin/false and /usr/sbin/nologin. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/comments/17 ** Changed in: accountsservice Status: Unknown => Fix Released ** Changed in: accountsservice Importance: Unknown => Critical ** Bug watch added: freedesktop.org Bugzilla #47045 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47045 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/908140 Title: [user-accounts]: segfault in um_user_set_icon_file() To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/accountsservice/+bug/908140/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
