Re: GSS-APIv3 sketch

[Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:55:29PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Love Hörnquist Åstrand wrote:
> > That doesn't answer my question, making the SPI look like the API is the problem.
> 
> Actually, I have options to set the SPI symbol prefix to anything you
> like, so as long as you don't have additional SPI arguments (as we do in
> OpenSolaris) you're OK.  But ALSO, I did answer your question: providers
> that don't support he new SPI can be accessed via v2u1 mechglues used
> through the v3 mechglue (that's what the note about shims was about).

I should add too that this is how I plan to test the mechglue, since I
don't intend to port any existing providers to this SPI:

 - configure a v3 call context to use a v2u1 mechglue as a provider
 - add stackable mechanism providers (to excercise the v3 SPI)
 - test

Also, my plan is to mix OpenSolaris and MIT mechglues to access
different mechanism providers indirectly:

 - configure a v3 call context to use the OpenSolaris v2u1 mechglue as a
   provide mech_dh
 - add the MIT v2u1 mechglue (compiled to have the same ABI as the
   OpenSolaris one) as a provider to provide mech_krb5
 - add stackable mechanism providers (to excercise the v3 SPI)
 - test

Nico
--