Re: changes to struct rpc_gss_sec

[Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

Possibly because authgss_create_default() was the API
available to gssd back in the day. rpc_gss_seccreate(3t)
is newer. That would be my guess.


> On Nov 22, 2023, at 1:07 AM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> A quick reply as I'm on vacation but I can take a look when I get
> back. I'm just thinking there must be a reason why gssd is using the
> authgss api and not calling the rpc_gss one.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 6:59 AM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hey Olga-
>> 
>> I see that f5b6e6fdb1e6 ("gss-api: expose gss major/minor error in
>> authgss_refresh()") added a couple of fields in structure rpc_gss_sec.
>> Later, there are some nfs-utils changes that start using those fields.
>> 
>> That breaks building the latest upstream nfs-utils on Fedora 38, whose
>> current libtirpc doesn't have those new fields.
>> 
>> IMO struct rpc_gss_sec is part of the libtirpc API/ABI, thus we really
>> shouldn't change it.
>> 
>> Instead, if gssd needs GSS status codes, can't it call
>> rpc_gss_seccreate(3), which explicitly takes a struct
>> rpc_gss_options_ret_t * argument?
>> 
>> ie, just replace the authgss_create_default() call with a call to
>> rpc_gss_seccreate(3) ....
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>> 
>> 
>> 

--
Chuck Lever