[16996] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: : Why are we using libverto again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathaniel McCallum)
Thu Jul 7 14:34:56 2011
From: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:34:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOiLdetPK1JJYs+i3-b7L10fO2h6D5fPigM9soZuhhhhMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1310063691.16598.22.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>, "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:15 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> wrote:
> > I understand that. And based on your description of a simple
> > intermediary, that made some sense. However the complexity of the
> > intermediary has far exceeded what I was expecting. I'll admit that my
> > original simple vision wouldn't have worked, but I think we should all
> > carefully consider what we got and whether it's worth the cost.
>
> I don't think it's terribly complicated. It's simple, actually. The
> one problem identified so far is the use of dladdr(), and I think both
> uses of it are unnecessary (clever, but unnecessary).
Thanks for your vote of cleverness. ;)
The only platform that doesn't support dladdr() is win32, but it has
something extremely similar which I've already implemented. Whether
dladdr() stays around in the long-term or not I could care less. But it
needs to be pointed out that the so-called "problem" isn't actually a
problem at all. Far more problematic is the subtle behavior differences
between libraries, but I've more or less solved that now.
Nathaniel
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
