Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:56:51 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: d@delphij.net, Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org>, Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM modules Message-ID: <20110921095651.GJ1511@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <86ipomz1iq.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86boukbk8s.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4E738794.4050908@delphij.net> <86zki1afto.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4E78EA46.2080806@delphij.net> <86ty86zzcg.fsf@ds4.des.no> <1251419684.20110921022541@serebryakov.spb.ru> <4E7914E1.6040408@delphij.net> <849327678.20110921024347@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20110920225109.GF1511@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86ipomz1iq.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--E2AOuUyqcJWq6+RR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:29:49AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> writes: > > Yes, the question of maintanence of the OpenLDAP code in the base > > is not trivial by any means. I remember that openldap once broke > > the ABI on its stable-like branch. >=20 > That's irrelevant. Our own renamed subset of OpenLDAP would only be > used by our own code, primarily nss_ldap and pam_ldap, and would be > updated when and only when we decided that it needed updating, not every > time a new OpenLDAP release shipped. We did this successfully with > expat (libbsdxml), and there's no reason why it wouldn't work with > OpenLDAP. >=20 > > Having API renamed during the import for the actively-developed > > third-party component is probably a stopper. I am aware of the rename > > done for ssh import in ssh_namespace.h, but I do not think such > > approach scale. >=20 > The entire point of ssh_namespace.h is to minimize the amount of changes > required. Actually, when I say minimize, I mean "reduce to zero", and > the file itself is autogenerated, except for lining up the columns, > which I do manually. I don't know why you think it doesn't scale. >=20 > I don't think we have anything to gain by writing our own LDAP library. > Firstly, new code means new bugs, and this is security-critical code. > Secondly, any LDAP client library we wrote would have to have an API > that closely paralells OpenLDAP's; otherwise, we would also have to > rewrite nss_ldap and pam_ldap. I do not think that we would benefit from writing our own LDAP library either. But I also doubt that importing ldap support in base would offer any advantages in sum. --E2AOuUyqcJWq6+RR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk55tOIACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4gohwCgonT5z23OlA9LYG1plkuXioP+ 40UAoKVK3oqizW0h95Ff6vkA9YHJzTLJ =WKDX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E2AOuUyqcJWq6+RR--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110921095651.GJ1511>