Re: Keysafe dynamic UID
- To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Keysafe dynamic UID
- From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 18:37:04 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20161105173704.q5vqgllewto7nne5@grep.be>
- In-reply-to: <22546.34459.689474.107999@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- References: <20161022215723.mpnzx6e4vuroziyf@hephaestus.silentflame.com> <87k2d0820c.fsf@luffy.cx> <20161022222640.5wzinu2qk36vxi2g@jwilk.net> <E1byGQa-0001zH-TV@swivel.zugschlus.de> <20161023124843.lz33exebfj7yme62@gaara.hadrons.org> <20161023143230.GA12909@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20161023145920.63tpek5fnzpiyobk@gaara.hadrons.org> <20161027174621.f27zgwtkzo4ktgpf@derobert.net> <22546.34459.689474.107999@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:58:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (IME one gets the first matching entry found in /etc/passwd).
Yes, if you use libnss_compat.so. There are, however, a number of caching NSS
modules (e.g., libnss-db, libnss-cache, ...) that do not guarantee the same
ordering of entries from /etc/passwd.
Do not depend on observed behaviour in this case, please :-)
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Reply to: