Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 04:12:39PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> This implementation stores the secrets in an unencrypted text file,
>> for simplicity in implementation and debugging.
>>
>> (Symmetric encryption, e.g. using gpgme, will not be difficult to add.
>> Because the TLS private key used by libvirtd is stored unencrypted,
>> encrypting the secrets file does not currently provide much additional
>> security.)
>>
>> Changes since the fourth submission:
>> - Rewrite storage mechanism to use one or two files per secret
>> - Use the separate virSecretDef API for XML manipulation
>> - Update for <usage type='volume'><volume/></usage>
>> - Replace the "libvirt_internal_call" parameter of setValue() by
>> VIR_SECRET_GET_VALUE_INTERNAL_CALL.
>> - Fix comment in src/libvirt_private.syms
>>
>> * include/libvirt/virterror.h, src/virterror.c (VIR_ERR_NO_SECRET): New
>> error number.
>> * po/POTFILES.in, src/Makefile.am: Add secret_driver.
>> * bootstrap: Use gnulib's base64 module.
>> * src/secret_driver.c, src.secret_driver.h, src/libvirt_private.syms:
>> Add local secret driver.
>> * qemud/qemud.c (qemudInitialize): Use the local secret driver.
>> ---
>> bootstrap | 1 +
>> include/libvirt/virterror.h | 1 +
>> po/POTFILES.in | 1 +
>> qemud/qemud.c | 3 +
>> src/Makefile.am | 14 +
>> src/libvirt_private.syms | 3 +
>> src/secret_driver.c | 1060 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> src/secret_driver.h | 28 ++
>> src/virterror.c | 5 +
>> 9 files changed, 1116 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 src/secret_driver.c
>> create mode 100644 src/secret_driver.h
>>
>> diff --git a/bootstrap b/bootstrap
>> index 8b81e0e..885b299 100755
>> --- a/bootstrap
>> +++ b/bootstrap
>> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ gnulib_tool=$GNULIB_SRCDIR/gnulib-tool
>> <$gnulib_tool || exit
>>
>> modules='
>> +base64
>
> Argh !
> .gnulib/lib/base64.c
> "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> any later version."
>
> Looks like GPL code not LGPL, I'm not sure we can actually use it,
> Jim any opinion ?
>
> We have some base64 code in libxml2 but it's not part of the
> exported APIs
That module's license is LGPLv2+, so we're fine.
$ grep -A1 Lic .gnulib/modules/base64
License:
LGPLv2+
Yes, it can definitely be confusing if you don't realize
that the module file is where the *real* license is recorded,
and the comment in the code is automatically substituted
by gnulib-tool when it imports the code into your project.
So best is to look at files (post-bootstrap) in gnulib/, not .gnulib/.
Note that any patch that adds a module and passes the check in ./bootstrap
should be fine, because we've told gnulib-tool to enforce
libvirt's LGPLv2+ requirement:
$ grep -A1 '^$gnulib_to' bootstrap
$gnulib_tool \
--lgpl=2 \
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list