File _service:tar_scm:backport-lslogins-improve-pref... of Package util-linux

File _service:tar_scm:backport-lslogins-improve-prefixes-interpretation.patch of Package util-linux

From c51cba1e838ae7e36a843ec785543492bb8737cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:11:56 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lslogins: improve prefixes interpretation

It seems that for example 'passwd --lock' uses two exclamation marks
in password  field. It seems better to assume arbitrary number of '!'
and '*' prefixes.

The patch also makes description of the PWD-EMPTY output field more
explicit.

Addresses: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093166
Signed-off-by: Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
---
 login-utils/lslogins.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/login-utils/lslogins.c b/login-utils/lslogins.c
index 4a1c62fe9d..3646883e0e 100644
--- a/login-utils/lslogins.c
+++ b/login-utils/lslogins.c
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static const struct lslogins_coldesc coldescs[] =
 {
 	[COL_USER]          = { "USER",		N_("user name"), N_("Username"), 0.1, SCOLS_FL_NOEXTREMES },
 	[COL_UID]           = { "UID",		N_("user ID"), "UID", 1, SCOLS_FL_RIGHT},
-	[COL_PWDEMPTY]      = { "PWD-EMPTY",	N_("password not required"), N_("Password not required"), 1, SCOLS_FL_RIGHT },
+	[COL_PWDEMPTY]      = { "PWD-EMPTY",	N_("password not defined"), N_("Password not required (empty)"), 1, SCOLS_FL_RIGHT },
 	[COL_PWDDENY]       = { "PWD-DENY",	N_("login by password disabled"), N_("Login by password disabled"), 1, SCOLS_FL_RIGHT },
 	[COL_PWDLOCK]       = { "PWD-LOCK",	N_("password defined, but locked"), N_("Password is locked"), 1, SCOLS_FL_RIGHT },
 	[COL_PWDMETHOD]     = { "PWD-METHOD",   N_("password encryption method"), N_("Password encryption method"), 0.1 },
@@ -823,23 +823,42 @@ static struct lslogins_user *get_user_info(struct lslogins_control *ctl, const c
 			break;
 		case COL_PWDEMPTY:
 			if (shadow) {
-				if (!*shadow->sp_pwdp) /* '\0' */
+				const char *p = shadow->sp_pwdp;
+
+				while (p && (*p == '!' || *p == '*'))
+					p++;
+
+				if (!p || !*p)
 					user->pwd_empty = STATUS_TRUE;
 			} else
 				user->pwd_empty = STATUS_UNKNOWN;
 			break;
 		case COL_PWDDENY:
 			if (shadow) {
-				if ((*shadow->sp_pwdp == '!' ||
-				     *shadow->sp_pwdp == '*') &&
-				    !valid_pwd(shadow->sp_pwdp + 1))
+				const char *p = shadow->sp_pwdp;
+
+				while (p && (*p == '!' || *p == '*'))
+					p++;
+
+				if (p && *p && p != shadow->sp_pwdp && !valid_pwd(p))
 					user->pwd_deny = STATUS_TRUE;
 			} else
 				user->pwd_deny = STATUS_UNKNOWN;
 			break;
 		case COL_PWDLOCK:
 			if (shadow) {
-				if (*shadow->sp_pwdp == '!' && valid_pwd(shadow->sp_pwdp + 1))
+				const char *p = shadow->sp_pwdp;
+				int i = 0;
+
+				/* 'passwd --lock' uses two exclamation marks,
+				 * shadow(5) describes the lock as "field which
+				 * starts with an exclamation mark". Let's
+				 * support more '!' ...
+				 */
+				while (p && *p == '!')
+					p++, i++;
+
+				if (i != 0 && (!*p || valid_pwd(p)))
 					user->pwd_lock = STATUS_TRUE;
 			} else
 				user->pwd_lock = STATUS_UNKNOWN;
@@ -848,7 +867,7 @@ static struct lslogins_user *get_user_info(struct lslogins_control *ctl, const c
 			if (shadow) {
 				const char *p = shadow->sp_pwdp;
 
-				if (*p == '!' || *p == '*')
+				while (p && (*p == '!' || *p == '*'))
 					p++;
 				user->pwd_method = get_pwd_method(p, NULL, NULL);
 			} else