RFC behavior when shadow passwd file is missing with [PATCH]
Bernhard Fischer
rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Sat Mar 24 15:15:51 UTC 2007
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 03:07:37PM +0100, Tito wrote:
>On Saturday 24 March 2007 01:37:48 Denis Vlasenko wrote:
>> Hi Tito,
>>
>> On Friday 23 March 2007 22:31, Tito wrote:
>> > I noticed that in busybox we adopt different behavior when the shadow passwd file is missing:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > so 7 applets just emit a warning and use /etc/passwd instead, while 2 applets
>> > (adduser and sulogin) error out and die.
>>
>> I think that shadow-capable bbox should use /etc/passwd if /etc/shadow
>> record is not found.
>>
>> Rationale: having shadow-enabled bbox should not *force* admin to use
>> shadow passwords, it should *give him an option* to use them.
>>
>> > but probably adduser could adopt the same strategy as addgroup:
>> >
>> > file = fopen_or_warn(bb_path_gshadow_file, "a");
>>
>> I think this is the right approach.
>> --
>> vda
>>
>
>Hi, so here is a patch for adduser with some minor clean ups.
>Apply if you like it.
>
>Ciao,
>Tito
>
>BTW: while compiling current svn (make defconfig, make) i got this warning,
> but I was not able to figure out a way to fix it.
>
>findutils/find.c: In function ???parse_params???:
>findutils/find.c:348: warning: no previous prototype for ???alloc_action???
This is a bug (piece of code that violates C).
Proper thing to do is to move alloc_action to it's own function (nested
functions are not in the C spec, AFAICT).
More information about the busybox
mailing list