On 07/10/2013 10:49 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: >> To be consistent with "ceph" types for storage "auth" elements, allow >> "username" to be used as an "auth" attribute name for "chap" types. >> Continue to allow "login" for backwards compatibility when reading the XML, >> but when writing the XML use "username". > > Hmm, so the schema for 'chap' auth is utterly awful. > > While we have parsed this schema for a while, nothing in the libvirt > codebase has ever used 'chap' auth. > > As such I think we have reasonable grounds for just discarding the > existing code for parsing 'chap' auth and doing it right. ie use > the same terminology as 'ceph' and do not include the 'password' > value in the XML at all. > > Thoughts ? > > Daniel > Don't have the historical perspective w/r/t when it was added - even looking through gitk I can find that parsing in for quite a while (even in the src/storage_conf.c). I admit I found it quite confusing to read and attempt to document. Other than having to actually make the changes :-), I see no reason why the storage_conf needs to be different and support numerous combinations based on type... To be sure we're on the same page, the storage_conf XML then becomes <auth username='someuser'> <secret type='[ceph|iscsi]' [usage='mypassed'|uuid='someuuid']/> </auth> That is there'd be no reason for 'type' in the XML nor 'password'. The 'login' goes away and the 'username' becomes required. Should we search for 'login' or 'password' when parsing and issue some sort of warning/message via VIR_WARN or virReportError? Ditto for 'type'? Or do we just silently ignore? Cannot imagine someone putting a plain text password in the XML file, but then again I also know what happens when you assume something... John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list