From: | kolo hhmow <grzsmp(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pam auth - add rhost item |
Date: | 2015-10-13 20:12:17 |
Message-ID: | CAN4hRabe580wY6s716eq=WB7c6MbvLPOWhxvwYruZCW4OSW8og@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes, sorry. I was in hurry when I posted this message.
I dont understand whay in CheckPAMAuth function only PAM_USER item is
adding to pam information before authenticate?
Wheter it would be a problem to set additional pam information like
PAM_RHOST which is very useful because we can use this item to restrict
access to this ip address.
I hope I'm more specific now and you will understand me.
Sorry, but I'm not native english speaker.
Patch in attachment, and link below to web-view on github:
https://github.com/grzsmp/postgres/commit/5e2b102ec6de27e786d627623dcb187e997609e4
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:01 PM, kolo hhmow <grzsmp(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Wheter it would be a problem to set additional item (rhost) before
> > pam_authentication function in backend/libpq/auth.c?
> > It is very useful because you can restrict access to given ip address
> like
> > in mysql.
> > And this actually utilized in pam-pgsql, wich cannot be used because
> rhost
> > item is empty.
>
> I can't understand what you are suggesting here. Perhaps you could be
> more specific, or propose a patch.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
auth.c.patch | text/x-patch | 1.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rodolfo Campero | 2015-10-13 20:22:16 | Re: Duda |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-13 20:01:52 | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |