In case a system uses remote identity server (LDAP) the group lookup
can be very slow. We avoid it when we already know the user has the
group membership.
Do not reset the pid_child to 0 if the child process is still
running. This else-condition can be reached with pid being -1,
therefore explicitly test this condition.
This is a regression fix for CVE-2017-2616. If su receives a
signal like SIGTERM, it is not propagated to the child.
Reported-by: Radu Duta <raduduta@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tobias Stoeckmann <tobias@stoeckmann.org>
The third field in the /etc/shadow file (sp_lstchg) contains the date of
the last password change expressed as the number of days since Jan 1, 1970.
As this is a relative time, creating a user today will result in:
username:17238:0:99999:7:::
whilst creating the same user tomorrow will result in:
username:17239:0:99999:7:::
This has an impact for the Reproducible Builds[0] project where we aim to
be independent of as many elements the build environment as possible,
including the current date.
This patch changes the behaviour to use the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH[1]
environment variable (instead of Jan 1, 1970) if valid.
[0] https://reproducible-builds.org/
[1] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
Signed-off-by: Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org>
If ptr->line == NULL for an entry, the first cycle will exit,
but the second one will happily write past entries buffer.
We actually do not want to exit the first cycle prematurely
on ptr->line == NULL.
Signed-off-by: Tomas Mraz <tmraz@fedoraproject.org>
If su is compiled with PAM support, it is possible for any local user
to send SIGKILL to other processes with root privileges. There are
only two conditions. First, the user must be able to perform su with
a successful login. This does NOT have to be the root user, even using
su with the same id is enough, e.g. "su $(whoami)". Second, SIGKILL
can only be sent to processes which were executed after the su process.
It is not possible to send SIGKILL to processes which were already
running. I consider this as a security vulnerability, because I was
able to write a proof of concept which unlocked a screen saver of
another user this way.
