Bug 2182015

Summary:	Clarify `/etc/pam.d/sddm` choices
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Cristian Le <fedora>
Component:	sddm	Assignee:	Neal Gompa <ngompa13>
Status:	CLOSED EOL	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	39	CC:	jgrulich, kde-sig, m, ngompa13, pierluigi.fiorini, rdieter, travier
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	---
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2024-11-27 21:09:50 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Cristian Le 2023-03-27 09:34:56 UTC

Primarily, I want to raise the question about the line:
```
auth        substack      password-auth
```

Why do we use `substack` instead of `include` here? I have encountered an issue with `pam-u2f`/`pam-fprintd` configured as `sufficient` (haven't thoroughly tested `required`), where when I try to login, it simply hangs. This issue does not occur when I change from `substack` to `include`. Is anyone able to replicate or explain the choice of `substack`?

And another issue prompted by `authselect` in this issue[1] is, why are we using `password-auth`? They have suggested that we should be using `system-auth` instead, because the former is specific for password-like authenthication and stuff like login via fingerprint or yubikeys should be in the more general system-auth. There is an issue of course with gnome-keyring missing a password, which I have raised in the issue, but this seems to be more of a design issue all-around with secret-service/gnome-keyring/pam and passwordless authenthicators.

Comment 1 Fedora Release Engineering 2023-08-16 07:12:34 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle.
Changing version to 39.

Comment 2 Aoife Moloney 2024-11-08 10:50:31 UTC

This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 39 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 39 on 2024-11-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
'version' of '39'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden.
Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 39 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Comment 3 Aoife Moloney 2024-11-27 21:09:50 UTC

Fedora Linux 39 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-11-26.

Fedora Linux 39 is no longer maintained, which means that it
will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux
please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version
field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see
the version field.

If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an
active release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.