On Sun, Dec 04 2022, Theo Buehler <tb@theobuehler.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:19:45PM +0100, William Orr wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> getpwnam hasn't filled in passwd->pw_passwd since 5.9. This fixes a
>> crash in uucpd that relied on the legacy behavior.
Back in 2014 I created a port foruucpd and rmail because both were
removed from the base system with no prior warning. Reconsidering this
now, I would probably not create a port for uucpd. I can't think of a
useful hack for uucpd to support TLS, and tunneling UUCP over SSH
(what I did back then) doesn't involve running uucpd.
What use case do you have for this port?
>> Please cc me; not subscribed to this list.
>
> Thanks. While the diff is clearly correct, doesn't that mean that no one
> has used this port in >= 5 years? Is it worth keeping?
IIUC using bare getpwnam(3) could not work after this commit:
revision 1.61
date: 2016/05/07 21:52:29; author: tedu; state: Exp; lines: +3 -5; commitid: ubbtqq8abR4rInYW;
stop opening the shadow database by default. only programs that request it
via the _shadow functions will open now, preventing some programs running
as root from accidentally loading password hashes it into their memory.
ok deraadt
IMO this calls for a removal.
--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
No comments:
Post a Comment