Okay, I need to correct some items in this email here. Thanks to Casper Dik for the corrections. On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Ryan A. Krenzischek wrote: [..cut..] > Yes, most certainly....in particular the lines that end with > > "/usr/lib/security/$ISA/pam_unix.so.1" PAM interprets $ISA and is not actually processed by the shell. The PAM modules are independent of the kernel that is running. However, you must have a 64-bit kernel running in order to run 64-bit PAM applications. So, if you have a: 32-bit pam application $ISA = "" 64-bit pam application $ISA = "sparcv9" Relative Path Equivalent Absolute Path ------------- ------------------------------------ pam_unix.so.1 /usr/lib/security/$ISA/pam_unix.so.1 [..much cut..] I'm just realized that I read the diffs wrong. Pre 108993-36: pam.conf uses absolute paths Post 108993-36: pam.conf uses relative paths Does this mean that the patch includes a bad pam.conf? It seems that the pam libraries will not work with relative paths in pam.conf. Ryan Diffs from Barry Deevey: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Barry Deevey wrote: > > > Hi Ryan, > > > > The differences aren't huge, so I've listed them below: > > > > [root] ls -l pam* > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 2410 Jun 30 16:15 pam.conf > > -rw------- 1 root other 2410 Jun 30 16:05 pam.conf.300604 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 2072 Jan 5 2001 > pam.conf.pre108993-36 > > [root] diff pam.conf pam.conf.pre108993-36 > > 11,14c11,12 > > < login auth requisite pam_authtok_get.so.1 > > < login auth required pam_dhkeys.so.1 > > < login auth required pam_unix_auth.so.1 > > < login auth required pam_dial_auth.so.1 > > --- > > > login auth required /usr/lib/security/$ISA/pam_unix.so.1 > > > login auth required /usr/lib/security/$ISA/pam_dial_auth.so.1 [..much cut..] _______________________________________________ sunmanagers mailing list sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagersReceived on Wed Jun 30 17:53:23 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:43:34 EST