#1107481 after update 6.3.4 -> 6.3.5 screen locker does not accept unlock password

Package:
libkscreenlocker6
Source:
libkscreenlocker6
Description:
Secure lock screen architecture
Submitter:
Antonio
Date:
2025-08-03 22:43:04 UTC
Severity:
normal
#1107481#5
Date:
2025-06-08 08:14:25 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Maintainer,
after updating plasma on debian/sid to version 6.3.5, when I lock the
screen or
it locks for timeout, it no longer accepts the unlock password and the
only way
to recover the session is to click to "switch user" and reset the login
credentials. By doing so, instead of opening a new session, it recovers the
previous one.
I also noticed that 6.3.5 version on the lock screen no longer shows the
message "scan your fingerprint on your reader".
Going back to version 6.3.4 everything works correctly, after the screen is
locked just enter the password to return to the desktop.
Thanks,
Antonio De Lorenzi

#1107481#10
Date:
2025-06-08 08:29:23 UTC
From:
To:
/usr/lib/pam.d/{kde,kde-fingerprint,kde-smartcard}

e la riga non era commentata:

     auth [success=ok user_unknown=ignore default=bad] pam_succeed_if.so
user != root quiet_success

so root access was allowed by sddm, but then it was not possible to
unlock the password after screen lock.

#1107481#15
Date:
2025-06-08 11:57:11 UTC
From:
To:
Le 8 juin 2025 10:29:23 GMT+02:00, Antonio <antdev66@gmail.com> a écrit :

Sorry I'm not very fluent in Italian. Do I understand correctly that you're using a Plasma session as the root user ?


Thanks,
--
Aurélien

#1107481#20
Date:
2025-06-08 15:22:39 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,
sorry, I forgot to translate.


I found the problem: compared to the previous version, additional PAM
modules were added:
     /usr/lib/pam.d/{kde,kde-fingerprint,kde-smartcard}

and the line was not commented:
     auth [success=ok user_unknown=ignore default=bad] pam_succeed_if.so
user != root quiet_success

so root access was allowed by sddm, but then it was not possible to
unlock the password after screen lock.


Yes, the problem occurs when using plasma with root access, if I log in
as a user it's fine.

By commenting out the condition on the indicated line in the three files
the problem was solved.



Il 08/06/25 13:57, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto: