Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 229353 - net-nds/smbldap-tools-0.9.4-r1: smbldap-passwd fails with unset defaultMaxPasswordAge
Summary: net-nds/smbldap-tools-0.9.4-r1: smbldap-passwd fails with unset defaultMaxPas...
Status: RESOLVED UPSTREAM
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo's SAMBA Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-06-25 09:47 UTC by Gábor Vészi
Modified: 2008-06-25 14:48 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
patch to fix the defaultMaxPasswordAge bug (smbldap-passwd.patch,1.21 KB, patch)
2008-06-25 09:49 UTC, Gábor Vészi
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Gábor Vészi 2008-06-25 09:47:36 UTC
You get the following error if defaultMaxPasswordAge is unset in /etc/smbldap-tools/smbldap.conf:

$ grep ^.defaultMaxPasswordAge /etc/smbldap-tools/smbldap.conf 
#defaultMaxPasswordAge="45"
$ smbldap-passwd foobar
Changing UNIX and samba passwords for foobar
New password: 
Retype new password: 
Use of uninitialized value in string at /usr/sbin/smbldap-passwd line 277, <STDIN> line 2.
Failed to modify UNIX password: shadowMax: value #0 invalid per syntax at /usr/sbin/smbldap-passwd line 285, <STDIN> line 2.


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. unset defaultMaxPasswordAge in /etc/smbldap-tools/smbldap.conf
2. try to change the password of a samba user
Comment 1 Gábor Vészi 2008-06-25 09:49:20 UTC
Created attachment 158363 [details, diff]
patch to fix the defaultMaxPasswordAge bug

This fixes the bug. Originally from: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/2007-August/126629.html
Comment 2 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-06-25 14:32:36 UTC
Seems like you shouldn't unset the default. :)
Comment 3 Tiziano Müller (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-06-25 14:48:06 UTC
Can you please report this to upstream because I really don't see why we should include it directly.