smb_pam_accountcheck returns bad value?

[Simo Sorce]

Yes, looking at the 2.2 code password_ok has what you reported, but I'm working on HEAD and it has:
               if (ret)
                       return smb_pam_accountcheck(user);

changed by jra on revision 1.207

so I was not able to test with head and searched for the problem, I'll change my password_ok and smb_pam_accountcheck accordingly to your code.

On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:01:51PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> No, we use NT_STATUS constants to allow us to make NT show a meaningful
> error message on failure.  This is used in the domain logon code, which
> calls smb_pam_accountcheck.
> 
> Furthermore the current code in SAMBA_2_2 has this is
> password.c:password_ok()
> 
>                 if (ret)
>                   return (smb_pam_accountcheck(user) ==
> NT_STATUS_NOPROBLEMO);
> 
> So I fail to see the bug.
> 
> Ensure your local tree is up-to-date.
> 
> Andrew Bartlett
> 
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > 
> > shouldn't smb_pam_accountcheck return true on success?
> > testing without pam support I've seen that smb_pam_accountcheck
> > returns NT_STATUS_NOPROBLEMO (0x0) to password_ok instead of true (1)
> > this will make password validation fail when it should not (password_ok return True on success)
> > 
> > I've changed it to:
> > 
> > uint32 smb_pam_accountcheck(char * user)
> > {
> >         return True;
> > }
> > 
> > to be able to validate users.
> > 
> > bye.
> > 
> > --
> > Simo Sorce
> > ------------------------------
> >  Unix IS user friendly, it is just selective about who his friends are.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Bartlett
> abartlet at pcug.org.au
> 

-- 
Simo Sorce
------------------------------
 Unix IS user friendly, it is just selective about who his friends are.