saslauthd SASL_IPREMOTEPORT -> PAM_RHOST

[Amir 'CG' Caspi]

Hi Lorenzo,

	I don't think I can easily make a patched RPM, but I will 
try.  Hopefully upstream will be able to do it, though.

	As for the remote user, I can see that saslauthd does receive 
that info, but it doesn't log it via PAM, as you can see.  I believe 
this is because the remote user is not being passed into the correct 
field of the pamh struct, within auth_pam.  It's being passed into 
the login field, but it should also be passed into the user field, I 
believe.  I'm not a PAM expert, so I can't be sure, but I think this 
is the case.
	The default configuration for most systems is not to log 
debug-level info, so all we see is the * line, which has no user 
info.  I think if the username is passed into the correct field of 
the pamh struct, this should be fixed... I'm just not sure which is 
the correct field.

Thanks. =)
						--- Amir

At 10:15 AM +0200 05/23/2011, Lorenzo M. Catucci wrote:
>Amir,
>	I just checked the 2.1.23 patch applies with just some line shift
>to 2.1.22. I have no handy way to test it and I have no experience with
>SRMPs, specs and the like, since my systems are debian based. I'd be 
>VERY grateful if you could try yourself to create a patched RPM for 
>a test
>system of yours!
>
>As for the "pass the requested login name", saslauthd does know the login
>name, as it must be passed to the auth handlers; if you set the syslog
>level for the authpriv syslog destination to debug, you'll be able to see
>lines like the following ones:
>
>May 23 09:53:36 test saslauthd[28570]: pam_unix(svc:auth): check 
>pass; user unknown
>May 23 09:53:36 test saslauthd[28570]: pam_unix(svc:auth): 
>authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= 
>rhost=127.0.0.1 **
>May 23 09:53:38 test saslauthd[28570]: DEBUG: auth_pam: 
>pam_authenticate failed: Authentication failure
>May 23 09:53:38 test saslauthd[28570]: do_auth         : auth 
>failure: [user=cg] [service=svc] [realm=] [remote=127.0.0.1;42002] 
>[mech=pam] [reason=PAM auth error] **
>
>Since that is the default configuration on my systems, I didn't get
>the problematic * line, since all you need is shown in **.
>
>I don't make any promise, but I'll try to understand this glitch.
>
>Thank you very much, yours
>
>	lorenzo