On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim <salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/11/2014 11:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default = >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default >>> >>> Change owner(s): quickbooks <quickbooks.office@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The securetty file is empty by default >>> >>> There's on-going discussion for this Change on the devel list. >>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/197344.html >> >> Fedora Base Working Group discussed this Change on today's meeting >> (2014-04-11) and tends to support counter proposal to remove securetty >> entirely from the default PAM configuration (not from distribution) >> as discussed in the thread mentioned above. Base WG would like to ask >> FESCo to weight it as part of decision making (once this change hits >> FESCo meeting). >> > Apologies for being late to the discussion as well - just wanted to note > that I've been running root-password-less configurations for some time > (by using passwd -l to lock out the root account post-install), and > later encountered this scenario whereby one of the disks failed fsck and > I was dropped into a single-user mode login for maintenance, where I was > prompted for... you get it, the root password. > > Resorted to rebooting and disabling fsck from grub, but how to handle > fsck errors should probably be considered as part of this proposed change. You're not the only one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045574 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087528 but I don't think that this is really related to securetty. --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
