GNU bug report logs - #36239
[PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 36239 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 36239 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kristofer Buffington <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 22:45:46 -0400

[0001-gnu-services-mail.scm.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]

From 4498a2c9e1453cb81b54231a5203bc55019e62db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kristofer Buffington <kristoferbuffington <at> gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:34:30 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] * gnu/services/mail.scm added %opensmtpd-pam-services to the
 opensmtpd-service-type
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org

---
 gnu/services/mail.scm | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/services/mail.scm b/gnu/services/mail.scm
index 216b2c80b0..e54d7eb3c1 100644
--- a/gnu/services/mail.scm
+++ b/gnu/services/mail.scm
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2017, 2018 Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Carlo Zancanaro <carlo <at> zancanaro.id.au>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
+;;; Copyright © 2019 Kristofer Buffington <kristoferbuffington <at> gmail.com>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -1667,6 +1668,9 @@ accept from local for any relay
            (mkdir-p "/var/spool/smtpd")
            (chmod "/var/spool/smtpd" #o711))))))
 
+(define %opensmtpd-pam-services
+  (list (unix-pam-service "smtpd")))
+
 (define opensmtpd-service-type
   (service-type
    (name 'opensmtpd)
@@ -1675,6 +1679,8 @@ accept from local for any relay
                              (const %opensmtpd-accounts))
           (service-extension activation-service-type
                              opensmtpd-activation)
+          (service-extension pam-root-service-type
+                             (const %opensmtpd-pam-services))
           (service-extension profile-service-type
                              (compose list opensmtpd-configuration-package))
           (service-extension shepherd-root-service-type
-- 
2.18.0

Message #8 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Kristofer Buffington <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:40:45 +0200

Hi Kristofer,

Kristofer Buffington <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com> skribis:

> +(define %opensmtpd-pam-services
> +  (list (unix-pam-service "smtpd")))
> +
>  (define opensmtpd-service-type
>    (service-type
>     (name 'opensmtpd)
> @@ -1675,6 +1679,8 @@ accept from local for any relay
>                               (const %opensmtpd-accounts))
>            (service-extension activation-service-type
>                               opensmtpd-activation)
> +          (service-extension pam-root-service-type
> +                             (const %opensmtpd-pam-services))

Could you explain why the PAM service is needed and what went wrong
before that?

I haven’t use this service (yet) but I’m surprised it needs a PAM hook.

Thanks for your patch,
Ludo’.

Message #11 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kristofer Buffington <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:52:02 -0400

The opensmtpd package includes --with-pam at build time, but the service
does not extend pam. As a result, an administrator would need to
maintain a seperate passwd or other authentication
mechanism instead of using PAM.

Kris

Message #14 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Kristofer Buffington
 <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:11:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Kristofer, Ludo',

Kristofer Buffington wrote:
> The opensmtpd package includes --with-pam at build time, but the 
> service
> does not extend pam. As a result, an administrator would need to
> maintain a seperate passwd or other authentication
> mechanism instead of using PAM.

Thanks for the patch!  Looks good to me, assuming you've 
battle-tested the thing.  I've Guixed up the commit message, but 
let's give Ludo' a chance to respond.

> walletsworth

I feel all, like, personally offended.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0001-services-opensmtpd-Extend-the-PAM-service.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]

From 60f3fd35ac4925e86556781ccc2620f54dccacd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kristofer Buffington <kristoferbuffington <at> gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:34:30 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] services: opensmtpd: Extend the PAM service.

* gnu/services/mail.scm (%opensmtpd-pam-services): New variable.
(opensmtpd-service-type)[extensions]: Add it, extending
PAM-ROOT-SERVICE-TYPE.

Signed-off-by: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
---
 gnu/services/mail.scm | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/services/mail.scm b/gnu/services/mail.scm
index 0e85ada3d0..3de0b4c2f3 100644
--- a/gnu/services/mail.scm
+++ b/gnu/services/mail.scm
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2017, 2018 Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Carlo Zancanaro <carlo <at> zancanaro.id.au>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
+;;; Copyright © 2019 Kristofer Buffington <kristoferbuffington <at> gmail.com>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -1667,6 +1668,9 @@ accept from local for any relay
            (mkdir-p "/var/spool/smtpd")
            (chmod "/var/spool/smtpd" #o711))))))
 
+(define %opensmtpd-pam-services
+  (list (unix-pam-service "smtpd")))
+
 (define opensmtpd-service-type
   (service-type
    (name 'opensmtpd)
@@ -1675,6 +1679,8 @@ accept from local for any relay
                              (const %opensmtpd-accounts))
           (service-extension activation-service-type
                              opensmtpd-activation)
+          (service-extension pam-root-service-type
+                             (const %opensmtpd-pam-services))
           (service-extension profile-service-type
                              (compose list opensmtpd-configuration-package))
           (service-extension shepherd-root-service-type
-- 
2.22.0

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:23:57 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludo',

> +(define %opensmtpd-pam-services
> +  (list (unix-pam-service "smtpd")))

Hm.  This is consistent with the (inconsistent) use of % in (gnu 
services mail) even for unexported variables, but that doesn't 
match my understanding of %.

I'd like to remove it here and elsewhere in the file:

 $ grep define.*-activation gnu/services/mail.scm
 (define (%dovecot-activation config) ← local
 (define opensmtpd-activation
 (define exim-activation

Would that be noise?

Kind regards,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Kristofer Buffington <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:52:07 +0200

Hello,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> skribis:

> From 60f3fd35ac4925e86556781ccc2620f54dccacd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Kristofer Buffington <kristoferbuffington <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:34:30 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] services: opensmtpd: Extend the PAM service.
>
> * gnu/services/mail.scm (%opensmtpd-pam-services): New variable.
> (opensmtpd-service-type)[extensions]: Add it, extending
> PAM-ROOT-SERVICE-TYPE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>

LGTM, please push Tobias!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #23 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:54:12 +0200

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> skribis:

>> +(define %opensmtpd-pam-services
>> +  (list (unix-pam-service "smtpd")))
>
> Hm.  This is consistent with the (inconsistent) use of % in (gnu
> services mail) even for unexported variables, but that doesn't match
> my understanding of %.

I think I’d use it here; that’s consistent with the rest of the file
actually, no?  To me everything looks OK as it is.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #26 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:18:27 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think I’d use it here; that’s consistent with the rest of the 
> file
> actually, no?  To me everything looks OK as it is.

Then I'm not sure I grok % (which is likely as I've never read a 
description, only induced its use).

What's the difference between:

(define (%dovecot-activation config) …

and

(define opensmtpd-activation …
(define exim-activation …

?  I thought it had something to do with being exports/globals but 
here (%opensmtpd-accounts, etc.) it is used simply to say ‘this is 
a list’.

Will push,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #29 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:49:51 +0200

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I think I’d use it here; that’s consistent with the rest of the file
>> actually, no?  To me everything looks OK as it is.
>
> Then I'm not sure I grok % (which is likely as I've never read a
> description, only induced its use).
>
> What's the difference between:
>
> (define (%dovecot-activation config) …
>
> and
>
> (define opensmtpd-activation …
> (define exim-activation …
>
> ?  I thought it had something to do with being exports/globals but
> here (%opensmtpd-accounts, etc.) it is used simply to say ‘this is a
> list’.

It’s a long story.  :-)

Initially in Guile the ‘%’ prefix was used for “system” bindings, thing
you don’t normally use as a normal user.  Then I think I started using
it for things that are meant to be “internal” or variables meant to be
read-only (not procedures).  In Guix we sort of follow that but somewhat
extend the meaning.

In the example above, I’d rather write ‘dovecot-activation’ (without
prefix, because it’s a procedure), but I’d probably write
‘%exim-activation’, depending on the phase of the moon.

HTH!

Ludo’.

Message #32 received at 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:54:41 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludo',

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I thought [%] had something to do with being exports/globals 
>> but
>> here (%opensmtpd-accounts, etc.) it is used simply to say ‘this 
>> is a
>> list’.
>
> It’s a long story.  :-)

Thanks for taking the time to tell it.

> Initially in Guile the ‘%’ prefix was used for “system” 
> bindings, thing
> you don’t normally use as a normal user.  Then I think I started 
> using
> it for things that are meant to be “internal” or variables meant 
> to be
> read-only (not procedures).  In Guix we sort of follow that but 
> somewhat
> extend the meaning.

s/extend/invert/ if I were feeling sassy.  I'd be lying if I said 
I understood it clearly now, but it'll be a lot easier to placate 
my obsessive side with a tasty bag of hysterical raisins than to 
keep searching for a pattern that's just not there.

> In the example above, I’d rather write ‘dovecot-activation’ 
> (without
> prefix, because it’s a procedure), but I’d probably write
> ‘%exim-activation’, depending on the phase of the moon.

Now you're just trollin'.

Thanks,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 36239-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: 36239-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Kristofer Buffington <kristofer <at> walletsworth.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#36239] [PATCH] opensmtpd-service-type to extend pam
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:01:13 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> LGTM, please push Tobias!

Done with ace8e269a40b31a9c6f413c0674529880da6a48e.

Thanks, Kristofer!

Kind regards,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.