All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
To: Masami Watanabe <masami.watanabe@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>,
	xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][Take 3] VNC authentification
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:56:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4524583D.8000109@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <JG200610050824484.801156@jp.fujitsu.com>

Masami Watanabe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My understanding of main_loop of vl.c was insufficient. 
> I have improved the point to have set the handler doubly.
> The protocol of protocol 3.3 and (UltraVNC's ?)3.4 did not actually
> need the response of the authentification type from the client.
> Therefore, protocol_authtype operated without being called.
>   

Yeah, I noticed that myself. That why your code was working. Your
authtype (which would have been right for 3.7+) was not being invoked
which happened to make it work for 3.3 :-)

> I will post the take 4 patch after this.
>
> The patch has limited  RFB protocol to 3.3 and 3.4.
> I also think that it should support 3.8 without being support 3.3 in
> the future.
>   

There is no official RFB 3.4.

The only documented protocols are 3.3, 3.7, and 3.8. Leaving no
authentication is definitely important. I can live with not having 3.8
support right away but I think it's key to allow for no authentication.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> However, Leaving like non authetification is not good.
> You will think the patch to be provisional action till then.
>
> Another.
> ill the RFB protocol still keep evolving in the future?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Watanabe
>
>
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:49:37 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:56:31PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Masami Watanabe wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> +static int vnc_auth(VncState *vs)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    extern char vncpasswd[64];
>>>>> +    extern unsigned char challenge[AUTHCHALLENGESIZE];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (*vncpasswd == '\0') {
>>>>> +	/* AuthType is None */
>>>>> +	vnc_write_u32(vs, 1);
>>>>> +	vnc_flush(vs);
>>>>> +	vnc_read_when(vs, protocol_client_init, 1);
>>>>> +    } else {
>>>>> +	/* AuthType is VncAuth */
>>>>> +	vnc_write_u32(vs, 2);
>>>>> +	vnc_flush(vs);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Read AuthType */
>>>>> +	vnc_read_when(vs, protocol_authtype, 1);
>>>>>  
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> As I mentioned before, you cannot have to vnc_read_when()'s execution 
>>>> path without returning the the mainloop.
>>>>
>>>> protocol_authtype() cannot possibly be invoked.  If the code is working 
>>>> now, it's pure luck.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Yeah, the impl of protocol_authtype() in there is a no-op too - it should
>>> be rejecting auth types which aren't supported, even if it was being invoked.
>>> With the code as it is, protocol_authtype never runs & the server starts
>>> doing VNCAuth regardless of what the client says it wants to do, which is
>>> clearly not correct.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Another thing to keep in mind, is that the reason I did 3.3 instead of 
>> 3.8 is that I knew there was only one auth type we would be supporting.  
>> If we do support multiple auth types, we really ought to move to using 
>> the 3.8 protocol since that provides a negotiation mechanism.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>     
>>> Dan.
>>>   
>>>       
>
>   

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-10-05  0:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-04 23:24 [PATCH][Take 3] VNC authentification Masami Watanabe
2006-10-04 23:42 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-10-05  0:56 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
2006-10-05  1:28   ` [PATCH][Take 4] " Masami Watanabe
2006-10-10 13:11     ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-10-10 14:04       ` Anthony Liguori
2006-10-25 18:00         ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-10-25 20:43           ` Keir Fraser
2006-10-25 21:23             ` Daniel P. Berrange
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-26 18:23 Individual passwords for guest VNC servers ? Ian Pratt
2006-09-29  8:47 ` [PATCH][Take 2] VNC authentification Masami Watanabe
2006-09-29 22:11   ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-09-30 18:53     ` Masami Watanabe
2006-10-02 16:22       ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-10-02 17:24         ` Anthony Liguori
2006-10-02 18:12           ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-10-02 19:15             ` Ian Pratt
2006-10-03 16:08               ` [PATCH][Take 3] " Masami Watanabe
2006-10-03 17:56                 ` Anthony Liguori
2006-10-03 18:06                   ` Daniel P. Berrange
2006-10-03 18:49                     ` Anthony Liguori

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4524583D.8000109@us.ibm.com \
    --to=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk \
    --cc=masami.watanabe@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.