Yes, I'm confused as to why I'm so lucky. I turned the debug on in the PAM-0.70 modules yesterday and got all of the "called", "done", etc. messages and didn't see any problem. I'm now suspecting that I have a bad version of something. I'm going to spend today looking for newer versions or patches of everything on the system and see if that helps any. On the positive side: I'm learning an awful lot about LDAP and the Linux OS, both of which are interesting and worth the effort. Thank you everyone for your help, Kelli -----Original Message----- From: pam-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:pam-list-admin@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Michael Ju. Tokarev Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 5:30 PM To: pam-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: calling pam_sm_open_session BTW, Kelli, this is strange enouth. Why you are only one who encountered such a problem?! I guess that many sites has setup similar to yours... (I wan't blame you, no, I just curious.) Can you please (if you have working lilo "linux single") comment out "auth required pam_pwdb.so ..." line (and change sufficient to required on ldap line) or insert "auth required pam_deny.so" before that pwdb line in your pam.d/login file and see how this will affect your problem? (Note that you probably can't login as root in this case -- I recall "linux single"). Or, try to stack 'em in reverse order -- sufficient pwdb first, and required ldap with use_first_pass second. The [pam_]pwdb has many assorted bugs (and pam_unix also)... :( I don't know the difference between plain login and telnetd+login in "pam" point of view. Or, there should be _no_ difference. And I started to think that strace can be useful also (But I'm not an "ldap guru", so I'll not understand all the details). Kelli, can you repost that strace? And aha, Ben Collins already "groked" that -- he said that this is sigsegv, and that was in the first thread (that I didn't read until now)! Regards, Michael. _______________________________________________ Pam-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list