[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: seteuid() in kscreensaver
From:       Stephan Kulow <coolo () kde ! org>
Date:       1999-03-09 17:34:02
[Download RAW message or body]

Christian Esken wrote:
> 
> Martin Jones schrieb:
> >
> > Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > >
> > > Harri Porten wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi !
> > > >
> > > > I just continued my experiment to compile KDE on a machine running HP/UX.
> > > > Everything's going fine so far except from some calls to seteuid() which
> > > > isn't available everywhere.
> > > > I already changed the one in kquickhelp to setuid() which is more
> > > > appropriate anyway.
> > > >
> > > > But what about the ones in kscreensaver.cpp ? Is it safe to drop them or
> > > > put a #ifdef HAVE_SETEUID around them now that kcheckpass is there ?
> > > >
> > > > Quite a few people have worked on main.cpp so I post this request here
> > > > instead of filing a bug report.
> > > >
> > > As far as I know a replacement for seteuid exists, but I'm not sure.
> > > But using kcheckpass is definitly a good idea. I would even go so far
> > > to get rid of every password related code in klock and port kcheckpass
> > > alone.
> >
> > I would like to remove all password stuff from klock ASAP and rely
> > on kcheckpass only for KDE 1.1.1.  Is there is anyone who knows a
> > good reason not to?
> 
> Portability?
> 
> You cannot imagine the trouble to get kcheckpass ready for
> KDE1.1 - and KDE1.1 still suffered from not being able to
> support "Shadow+NIS".
> Currently I have included the patches from SuSE, and I have
> quite varying reports from testers: Some say: Jippie, it
> finally works, others say, now even Shadow support is broken. :-(
> 
Well, shadow support is definitly not broken. But kcheckpass
shouldn't be installed SUID - this is only needed when using
shadow, not? And even there chgrp shadow is enough, so we 
better leave it up to the user.

Greetings, Stephan

-- 
As long as Linux remains a religion of freeware fanatics,
Microsoft have nothing to worry about.  
                       By Michael Surkan, PC Week Online

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]