On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:41:07 +0100 (BST), Jason Clifford <jason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Jason DiCioccio wrote: > > > Thanks Jason (wow, there's a lot of Jasons).. This was unfortunately > > the answer I was expecting. The reason behind the PAM module is so > > that we wouldn't have to modify the code for our various services each > > time we wanted to upgrade them. However, I suppose adding a couple of > > lines to the code is still a lot better than having to add ~200 lines. > > I don't think it would require that much code if you really wanted to do > it completely inside PAM. > > In fact, all you should need to do is to define an extra pam item (say, > PAM_LHOST to complement PAM_RHOST) and then add the necessary logic in > your module which should only be a few lines of code - the specifics being > reserved to the configuration object. Hmm.. Perhaps I'm dense, but I can't think of a way to figure out the address to put into PAM_LHOST without actually doing it from within each application. Are you saying I can do all of this completely within the module? If so, how? > > You could send in a patch so that the main distribution might have the > same thus allowing you to keep up to date with PAM releases without > worrying about patching for this local issue. > > > > Jason Clifford > -- > UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net > http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband from just £22.50 / month > > Thanks, -JD- _______________________________________________ Pam-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
