Relevant BUGIDs: 476961

Purpose of commit: comments

Commit summary:
---------------
Added some clarification comments to help explain why I'm rejecting
bug 476961.

diff --git a/CHANGELOG b/CHANGELOG
index 413c56c1156132fdd9d813cf383b14264e3250a1..7ab5df55da5cf38de26fe864501fbbc6f250bf92 100644 (file)
--- a/CHANGELOG
+++ b/CHANGELOG
@@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ bug report - outstanding bugs are listed here:
       patches!
 
 * pam_pwdb: Solar Designer pointed out that there was a problem with
-  the compatibility support for md5 password hashing. (Bug 460717 -
-  agmorgan)
+  the compatibility support for md5 password hashing. (Bug 460717,
+  476961 - agmorgan)
 * pam_issue: Nalin found segfaulting problems if the PAM_USER_PROMPT
   is unset, found some similar problems with assumptions about
   realloc. (Bug 476983 - agmorgan)

diff --git a/modules/pam_pwdb/pam_unix_passwd.-c b/modules/pam_pwdb/pam_unix_passwd.-c
index e0ef091777ca57cebadc3263b0b1d79945fc4c62..0949af7fed1bbd4c6cc760f722fe420d006fec4f 100644 (file)
--- a/modules/pam_pwdb/pam_unix_passwd.-c
+++ b/modules/pam_pwdb/pam_unix_passwd.-c
@@ -236,6 +236,8 @@ static int _unix_chauthtok(pam_handle_t *pamh, unsigned int ctrl)
        /*
         * By reaching here we have approved the passwords and must now
         * rebuild the password database file.
+        *
+        * This includes the fact that the password is _not_ NULL.
         */
 
        /*

diff --git a/modules/pam_pwdb/support.-c b/modules/pam_pwdb/support.-c
index bbaa51ace539d4f9ab84147372ebd0578b32d3aa..e6d5829d0661dd10b1306f6fb7788c9b8bce95db 100644 (file)
--- a/modules/pam_pwdb/support.-c
+++ b/modules/pam_pwdb/support.-c
@@ -513,6 +513,7 @@ static int _unix_verify_password(pam_handle_t *pamh, const char *name,
 
     } else {
 
+       /* there is no way that p can be NULL (one can be "") */
         pp = _pam_md(p, salt);
 
         /* the moment of truth -- do we agree with the password? */