Bug 148986

Summary: recent pam_limits change breaks existing configurations
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Reporter: Cormac McGaughey <cormac>
Component: pamAssignee: Tomas Mraz <tmraz>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Jay Turner <jturner>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 3.0CC: shillman, srevivo
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Regression
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-04-28 15:39:40 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Cormac McGaughey 2005-02-17 19:22:49 UTC
Description of problem:
The 2004-12-21
(https://rhn.redhat.com/network/errata/details/index.pxt?eid=2597)
update introduced a change to pam_limits that breaks existing
limits.conf configurations.

Until this update the structure of limits.conf used @group to count
limits per user within the group. After this update @group counts for
the *whole* group, no per user. The &group counts per user.

The patch should not have changed it so that such a major change would
not affect the @group method, and made the &group apply limits group wide?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
pam-0.75-62

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Take a pre pam-0.75-62 system and setup limits.conf to include the
line:
@group    -       maxlogins       6
where group is a group of users.
2. Each user within the group will get 7 logins before being stopped.
3. Apply the pam-0.75-62 update
4. Try logging in various users in the group and the whole group will
only get 7 logins.
  
Actual results:
pam_limits was changed so that the @group method was now counting  for
the whole group

Expected results:
pam_limits should have maintained the existing @group method and the
groupwide change should have only applied to &group

Additional info:

Comment 1 Tomas Mraz 2005-02-17 21:16:47 UTC
Yes, this is a regression.

Comment 4 John Flanagan 2005-04-28 15:39:40 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-064.html


Comment 6 Tim Powers 2005-05-18 14:49:14 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-062.html