On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 9:56 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I am wondering if PAM is so fundamentally incompatible with handling
> interrupts / a non-blocking interface that we have little choice but to
> eventually remove it...
Given the choice between a usually-working PAM module with known
architectural flaws, and not having PAM at all, I think many users
would rather continue using what's working for them.
> FWIW, I continue to think that it's better to invest in making more auth
> methods non-blocking, rather than adding wait events for code that could maybe
> sometimes wait on different things internally.
I think we disagree on the either/or nature of that. If I can get
proof that a certain thing is causing bugs in the wild, then I have
ammunition to fix that thing. Right now there is no visibility, and my
interest in rewriting old authentication methods without bug reports
to motivate that work is pretty low. I'm not willing to sign up for
that at the moment.
(But I do really appreciate the review. I'm just feeling crispy about
the overall result...)
Thanks,
--Jacob
