Bug 100524 - python bindings don't seem to reflect state of /etc/shadow
Summary: python bindings don't seem to reflect state of /etc/shadow
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux Beta
Classification: Retired
Component: libuser   
(Show other bugs)
Version: beta1
Hardware: All Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Miloslav Trmač
QA Contact:
Depends On: 91452
Blocks: CambridgeTarget
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-07-23 05:23 UTC by Brent Fox
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:55 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2004-09-02 15:56:18 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Brent Fox 2003-07-23 05:23:26 UTC
When I look at /etc/shadow for user 'foo5', I see:


but when I run the following Python program: 

import libuser

admin = libuser.admin()
userEnt = admin.lookupUserByName('foo5')

print "min is", userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWMIN)
print "warning is", userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWWARNING)
print "inactive is", userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWINACTIVE)
print "max is", userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWMAX)

I see:
min is [0L]
warning is [7L]
inactive is [-1L]
max is [99999L]

Aside from the SHADOWMAX, the values don't seem to be in line with what's in
/etc/shadow.  Any idea why this is?

Comment 1 Miloslav Trmač 2004-09-02 15:56:18 UTC
libuser is making the values up if the fields are empty.
(glibc makes up "-1" in all of these cases).

AFAICS it makes no difference if you want to enforce the limits,
at least until year 2243. The only difference is in the warning

Changing this now would break current s-c-users behavior,
so let's keep it as it is, until the next development cycle
at minimum.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.