Proposed modifications to replay cache to prevent false positives

Henry B. Hotz hotz at
Wed May 21 23:41:01 EDT 2008

On May 21, 2008, at 12:02 AM, krbdev-request at wrote:

> I think part of the intent in this project was to retain backwards
> compatibility with the existing implementation in terms of the on-disk
> format.  (E.g., mixing OS-vendor and MIT binaries without breaking
> things, when the MIT code has Jeff's shiny new replay cache and the  
> OS-
> vendor code is based on a slightly older MIT release.)  I wouldn't see
> a problem with the introduction of a new rcache type that uses a
> different file format, though; it'd let you run the old code until you
> were sure all the implementations on the machine supported the new
> code, and then start using the new stuff.

Is there a real example where this is useful?  I can't, for example,  
imagine multiple web servers on a machine where they didn't all use  
the same build.  (Well, OK, I can imagine that they might run on  
different ports and be optimized differently enough to wind up with  
different kerb libs, but I would treat this as an unsupported corner  
case.  Just make the name convention different enough that they don't  
damage each other.)

The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz at, or hbhotz at

More information about the krbdev mailing list