Re: Logging of PAM Authentication Failure

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logging of PAM Authentication Failure
Date: 2013-05-12 13:38:00
Message-ID: CA+HiwqGU6Vevw4aWkaUZJUgxb_9SjRYwypJpi5U+V7dD2gTmyQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> auth_failed() in src/backend/libpq/auth.c intentionally logs nothing for
> STATUS_EOF status (ie, client closed the connection without responding).
> But it looks like the PAM code path doesn't have a way to return that
> status code, even when pam_passwd_conv_proc() knows that that's what
> happened, and intentionally printed no log message itself (around line
> 1870 in HEAD). If there's another response code we could return through
> the PAM layer, this could be fixed, and I think it should be.

So if I get this correctly, does this mean the only thing that needs
to be fixed is unnecessary logging or is there a problem with
authentication exchange itself in case of PAM? Also, when you say PAM
layer, is that pam_passwd_conv_proc() that needs to be able to return
an alternative status code?

--
Amit Langote

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2013-05-12 20:18:35 Re: Proposal to add --single-row to psql
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2013-05-12 06:59:37 Re: [PATCH] add long options to pgbench (submission 1)