On (03/06/14 12:22), Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 05/31/2014 04:04 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (27/05/14 10:23), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:08:02AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:36:29AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>> On (27/05/14 09:27), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 09:17 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>> On (27/05/14 09:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 00:19 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ehlo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> strchrnul() and mempcpy() are GNU extensions to libc
>>>>>>>>> This patch add configure time test for this functions
and provide
>>>>>>>>> custom implementation if functions are not
available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> patch is attached.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LS
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sssd-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>>>>>>>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Lukas,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is it really necessary to have two definitions of
>>>>>>>> mempcpy()?
>>>>>>> Yes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> libsss_crypt.so is built either with nss or with libcrypto.
>>>>>>> Look into Makefile.am for details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LS
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sssd-devel mailing list
>>>>>>> sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just thinking if you could move
the
>>>>>> definition into separate file and thus avoid code duplication...
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, there will be no benefit.
>>>>> There isn't any shared file between two implementation of
libsss_crypt.
>>>>> static function can be easily inlined and I don't want to have
conditional
>>>>> definition of function in header file.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if using a "library" like gnulib might be useful in
the long
>>>> run to handle cases like this? I'm not saying we should do it now,
but
>> Problematic functions are in old stable code and only in one module.
>> SSSD has a lot of other dependencies I do not want to add another one.
>>
>>>> since you are currently looking at glibc, XOPEN and other extension I
>>>> wonder what's your opinion here?
>> macro XOPEN is not related to these functions. It is different story :-)
>>
>>>>
>>>> bye,
>>>> Sumit
>>>
>>> Yes, I prefer using code that was tested by others as well.
>>>
>>> Also, unlike the includes pushed yesterday, I would prefer either a test
>>> for these functions
>> The function strchrnul is used in confdb function parse_section
>> and it is indirectly tested in test_utils, simple_access-tests, sysdb-tests,
>> sysdb_ssh-tests
>>
>> The function mempcpy is used in computation of has sha512.
>> I added new test for function s3crypt_sha512.
>>
>> Thess passes with:
>> --with-crypto=nss
>> --with-crypto=libcrypto
>> with custom implementation of mempcpy
>>
>> The last one can be tested with next diff:
>> diff --git a/src/util/crypto/nss/nss_sha512crypt.c
b/src/util/crypto/nss/nss_sha512crypt.c
>> index 11194e5..54f6cbd 100644
>> --- a/src/util/crypto/nss/nss_sha512crypt.c
>> +++ b/src/util/crypto/nss/nss_sha512crypt.c
>> @@ -29,11 +29,11 @@
>> #include <sechash.h>
>> #include <pk11func.h>
>>
>> -#ifndef HAVE_MEMPCPY
>> +#undef mempcpy
>> +#define mempcpy mymempcpy
>> static void * mempcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t len) {
>> return (void*) (((char*)memcpy(dst, src, len)) + len);
>> }
>> -#endif /* HAVE_MEMPCPY */
>>
>> /* Define our magic string to mark salt for SHA512 "encryption"
replacement. */
>> const char sha512_salt_prefix[] = "$6$";
>>
>> LS
>
> Can you also add a memory leak check? See test_encrypt_decrypt.
sure
memory leak check was added.
updated version attached.
LS
It is impossible to configure and build with -Werror with these patches.
The detection of mempcpy then fails.
configure:14593: checking for mempcpy
configure:14593: gcc -o conftest -m64 -mtune=generic -O0 -ggdb3
-fstack-protector-all -Wall -Wextra -Wno-sign-compare -Wshadow
-Wno-unused-parameter -Werror -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_L
conftest.c:58:6: error: conflicting types for built-in function
'mempcpy' [-Werror]
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
/home/pbrezina/workspace/sssd/src/util/crypto/nss/nss_sha512crypt.c:33:15:
error: static declaration of 'mempcpy' follows non-static declaration
Is there a better way of doing that? Or just disabling the -Werror flag
for the test and enable it afterwards if present in CFLAGS?