t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk
Mon Feb 4 16:37:33 GMT 2002
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Scott Gifford wrote:
> > [...]
> > Also, hasn't the Samba Team expressed a reluctance to have samba going
> > around creating things in /dev? I seem to remember this, although
> > looking around I can't find any messages to reference.
> Its not reluctance, it simply won't happen. But I don't mind assisting
> this (very neat) concept by providing the requisite hooks for some
> external program/module to do the dirty work. I think that PAM modules
> provide a nice way to do this, without needing to modify anything in
> smbd *at all*, and I'm willing to provide 'exec' hooks as described in
> earlier e-mails. (People use pre/postexec for much of this stuff
To clarify, because I think Andrew and I are more closely in agreement
than might appear to be the case at first sight(!).
Let's keep two things separate, as they are reasonably independent:
1. Whether the basic functionality (text->Popup->transmission) is within
smbd or in a separate daemon.
2. Manipulating (creating) "/dev" entries.
Looking first at the latter issue of creating "/dev" entries.
Let's accept the Team view that smbd should not create things in "/dev",
even in a self-contained area such as "/dev/smb". That is, there is an
absolute veto against smbd doing the latter. Fair enough. I understand
(and indeed sympathise and share the concerns).
I think Andrew is suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong!) that an acceptable
way forward is for Samba to invoke PAM (routinely, irrespective of our
message/Popup stuff). Then the site admin configures PAM to call a PAM
module which creates the "/dev/smb" entry. (Thus, if nasty things then
happen in "/dev", smbd is innocent.)
My PAM knowledge has faded considerably over the last couple of years.
Does the PAM structure allow smbd to specify the name of the particular
"/dev/smb/XXX" (or whatever) so that "our" PAM module can pick it up?
Perhaps one of:
pam_set_item(..., PAM_TTY, ...)
To me, that sounds promising. Thanks.
Now switching briefly to the former issue (who/what implements basic Popup
functionality). There is still some debate, but I think (hope!) this
isn't at "veto" level. I put much of this in a message earlier today
(although some of that message covered different views of the "/dev/"
issue, probably now superceded (even nullified?) by the above).
Hope that helps.
Andrew: a personal note of thanks for making us think this through. I
: David Lee I.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer Computer Centre :
: University of Durham :
: http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road :
: Durham :
: Phone: +44 191 374 2882 U.K. :
More information about the samba-technical