Re: Review of pam for bookworm
Hi Bastien
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 03:06:17PM +0200, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 juillet 2025, 15:30:25 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Bastien
> Roucaries a écrit :
> > Le vendredi 25 juillet 2025, 20:13:13 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Bastien
> >
> > Roucaries a écrit :
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Could you review my work for pam/bookworm
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/rouca/pam/-/tree/bookworm/debian?ref_type=heads
> > >
> > > Can someone have an idea why autopkg fail ?
> > >
> > > I am trying to fix first bookworm then bullseye
> >
> > bullseye backported help welcome
> Buster and stretch also are for review
>
> rouca
> >
> > > rouca
>
I have reviewed the branches for bookworm, buster, and stretch.
Everything looks generally good, but I do have a few minor points and/or
questions:
- What is the source for the patch "Subject: pam_namespace from v1.7.1"?
It appears to be a combination of more than one commit, with some
added changes, but I would have expected to locate it in the
vorlon/pam Salsa project and I could not.
- On the buster and stretch branches, in str-skip-prefix.patch, there is
a peculiar difference with the upstream commit (584c539798). The patch
in the package adds this definition:
+#define pam_str_skip_prefix(str_, prefix_) \
+ pam_str_skip_prefix_len((str_), (prefix_), sizeof(prefix_) - 1)
The upstream commit has this:
+#define pam_str_skip_prefix(str_, prefix_) \
+ pam_str_skip_prefix_len((str_), (prefix_), sizeof(prefix_) - 1 + PAM_MUST_BE_ARRAY(prefix_))
My assumption here is that the PAM_MUST_BE_ARRAY() macro is not
present/available in the buster version (most likely because it was
introduced later). Is that right?
Assuming that you are confident in the origin of the v1.7.1 namespace
patch (and that it doesn't need a review) and that my understanding of the
PAM_MUST_BE_ARRAY() is correct, then the changes look good to me.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: