Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Noriko Hosoi wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 11:22 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>> Noriko Hosoi wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2016 06:36 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>>> William Brown wrote:
>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041
>>>>>
>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/49041/0001-Ticket-49041-SSL-fails-to-start-due-to-NSS-db-versio.patch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this should be reviewed urgently and backported. This can
>>>>> cause
>>>>> SSL to fail to start on F24 and higher without explanation.
>>>> key4.db and cert9.db are the sqlite databases. Does 389-ds support
>>>> specifying sql:/path/to/database/dir?
>>>>
>>>> rob
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> We have a plan to switch [1] but when we discussed in the team, we
>>> concluded it was not urgent.  I don't think NSS stops supporting the old
>>> BDB format very soon?
> Hi Rob,
> 
> I'm also not sure if we should migrate to sqlite format or not.  And if
> we do when we should...  When I worked on it 8 months ago, it was
> deferred since it was not urgent. :)
>> My question revolves around how likely this is to happen to make it
>> urgent. If 389-ds doesn't support sqlite databases then how are
>> key4/cert9 files going to end up being created?
> The current version does not support sqlite format (as William
> reported).  Once we apply the patch in [1], it generates sqlite format
> cert db's.  (Test case is also attached.)
>> Or is sqlite now the
>> default format for the NSS utilities so merely using certutil would
>> generate them?
> In terms of the upgrade, NSS provides the method, doesn't it?  Like once
> opening the old format by, e.g., certutil with some option, it
> automatically updates the format?  Then, we could rename the files to
> the new names?  I guess we should prepare an upgrade script to do the
> task which is executed in the rpm -U?
> 
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated...

My curiosity is only around how William found this bug in the first
place and what makes it so urgent.

rob
_______________________________________________
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Directory Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Older Fedora Users Mail]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [CentOS]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux