On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 20:09 +0200, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2014-07-11 19:41, schrieb David Woodhouse: > > On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 19:17 +0200, Michael Osipov wrote: > >> I would implement a fallback but provide two options where one should be > >> picked sticked to it: > >> > >> 1. Discover SPNEGO capability at compile time with autoconf. GSS-API > >> provides this option: > >> > >> OM_uint32 major, minor; > >> gss_OID_set mech_set; > >> major = gss_indicate_mechs(&minor, &mech_set); > >> > >> and then you can test the for set members with a default function. > > > > That doesn't work if you're cross-compiling. It's best to avoid tests > > that you have to *run* at configure time, if we can > > hmm...configure.ac *does* already some compile checks. E.g., > "[if you have an old MIT Kerberos version, lacking > GSS_C_NT_HOSTBASED_SERVICE])" > > But if this is a problem, we can omit this compile time check.
Compile checks are fine. It's AC_TRY_RUN which is an abomination and
should be avoided at all costs. Unless I misunderstood, your suggestion
was that we not only *compile* something for the target, but also try to
*run* it. Which isn't possible if we're cross-compiling.
> >> 2. Use SPNEGO by default and if the GSS-API impl does not support SPNEGO
> >> it will fail with an GSS error.
> >>
> >> Give that this is a corner case and should apply only to a fraction of
> >> users, I would go for option 2, e.g., your implementation.
> >
> > Or we could have the known broken cases hard-coded, and allow
> > --without-spnego at configure time rather than attempting a runtime
> > check?
>
> I do not think that this is necessary. I would rather rely on
>
> 1) upgrading GSS-API,
> 2) not fiddle with a small amount of ancient versions, and
> 3) the gss_display_status which indicates that this mech is not available.
Yeah, fair enough. So you're saying it's not necessary to do *anything*,
and we just rely on people having a not-completely-insane implementation
of GSSAPI? I'm happy enough with that, and it requires no extra work :)
So what *do* we want to do on top of the patch set I posted? Just add
support for '{Proxy,WWW}-Authenticate: Kerberos'?
--
dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
