Skip to content

README: add note about ordering pam_fscrypt before pam_systemd#280

Closed
ramcq wants to merge 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom
ramcq:pam-readme
Closed

README: add note about ordering pam_fscrypt before pam_systemd#280
ramcq wants to merge 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom
ramcq:pam-readme

Conversation

@ramcq
Copy link
Contributor

@ramcq ramcq commented Mar 3, 2021

As discussed in #278 (comment)

@ebiggers
Copy link
Collaborator

ebiggers commented Mar 3, 2021

Ah, I didn't see you were working on this. I just opened a pull request too (#281), which also does some other things such as improve the default behavior of pam_fscrypt.so so that the lock_policies and drop_caches options aren't needed.

I went with a briefer note about ordering, in-line with the sentence about where to add the line (so that it's harder to miss):

Add the line ... after pam_unix.so in /etc/pam.d/common-session or similar, but before pam_systemd.so or any other module that requires the user's home directory to be available.

Do you think that's sufficient, or could it use more explanation?

@ramcq
Copy link
Contributor Author

ramcq commented Mar 3, 2021

Seems alright, I might've gone a little more explicit on accesses the home directory or starts processes, as it's a little hidden / non-obvious that pam_systemd starts a session behind your back these days. :)

@ebiggers
Copy link
Collaborator

ebiggers commented Mar 3, 2021

Updated to:

Add the line ... after pam_unix.so in /etc/pam.d/common-session or similar, but before pam_systemd.so or any other module that accesses the user's home directory or starts processes which access the user's home directory during their session.

@ebiggers
Copy link
Collaborator

ebiggers commented Mar 9, 2021

#281 was merged, which took care of this.

@ebiggers ebiggers closed this Mar 9, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants