: Why are we using libverto again

Simo Sorce simo at redhat.com
Thu Jul 7 11:26:17 EDT 2011

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 10:44 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> So, as far as I can tell dladdr is a glibc extension.  So, we cannot
> even guarantee it's present on Unix platforms.
> I'm very concerned about the portability impact of this many shared
> library tricks.  Without win32 portability we can never use this in
> libkrb5.  So, it's only valuable for the KDC.

Many ?
dladdr() is the only trick I am aware of.

> Now, for the KDC today, we could just use a specific event library and
> gain significant complexity savings.

libverto is not complex at all and saves you from forcing a specific
dependency on a system given it seem different OSs are standardizinf on
different event libraries for now.

> I'm quite concerned that the complexity of libverto is too great to
> depend on just for simplifying a future libkdc.

Please take a look at the code.

> This is particulary true because several of the uses of libkdc such as
> pku2u or some of the eap preauth cases would strongly benefit from
> porting to Windows.

Windows was not stated as a necessary dependency when the project was
started. If it is now I am sure we can add it on the roadmap. The only
issue is that I know of no event libraries available in Windows at all
unless you count stuff that compiles on cygwyn/mingw which you said is
not ok.

So libverto is even more important here as it will be able to give us an
abstraction to work with once an event library useable on Windows is
identified, without stalling progress on the KDC side.

> I think we need to take a step back and carefully consider whether this
> direction makes sense.

It definitely does, the other option is to make the KDC threaded, and it
looks like that direction is even less desirable atm.


Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

More information about the krbdev mailing list