Bug 209537
Summary: | gdm should create a utmp entry for session | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | jmccann |
Component: | gdm | Assignee: | Ray Strode [halfline] <rstrode> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | cschalle, davidz, farrellj, mattdm, tmraz |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-05-07 19:12:14 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 150225 |
Description
jmccann
2006-10-05 21:18:32 UTC
yup, it's just a bug. We should be creating a utmp entry for local logins, and not for remote logins. See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347871 for more details. Note, I'm not sure it's a good idea to rely on utmp. It's not really reliable. Well, for tracking user sessions we need something like this. And it's bigger than Fedora, we'd want every OS that runs the growing Utopia stack (which soon will include ConsoleManager and PolicyKit) to be able to track this. Perhaps a better approach is to teach gdm, kdm and possibly login(1) about talking to ConsoleManager. Each of these would call into ConsoleManager to announce session add / remove. Would probably need some restructuring of how things work, e.g. gdm, kdm and login(1) would need to babysit the session. The latter is certainly a bit more robust. *** Bug 217198 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** well i have lots of scripts that rely on 'finger' and 'w' and 'who', and none are working. should i add the SESSREG code back into /etc/gdm/PreSession and PostSession? What again is the downside of using sessreg again? So how exactly do you guys suggest that I finger my box in the meantime? </set> Hi Paul, Adding back the sessreg code (with just the -u argument and not the -w argument) should work in the mean time. The downside of the sessreg code is just that it doesn't support btmp logging (It couldn't because it only gets run on successful logins). Other than that, it's fine, I think. Fedora Core 5 and Fedora Core 6 are, as we're sure you've noticed, no longer test releases. We're cleaning up the bug database and making sure important bug reports filed against these test releases don't get lost. It would be helpful if you could test this issue with a released version of Fedora or with the latest development / test release. Thanks for your help and for your patience. [This is a bulk message for all open FC5/FC6 test release bugs. I'm adding myself to the CC list for each bug, so I'll see any comments you make after this and do my best to make sure every issue gets proper attention.] This bug breaks also pam_timestamp module. We should try to get some sort of fix for this in before fc7 final if I can. okay i added sessreg back on for utmp records. |