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

[Fwd: krb5: FTBFS on hurd-i386]

FYI: And this is supposed to be secure software??

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com>
Reply-to: svante.signell@telia.com
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: krb5: FTBFS on hurd-i386
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:00:30 +0100

Package: krb5
Version: 1.10+dfsg~beta1-2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
User: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org
Usertags: hurd


The tiny patch inlined below fixes the build of krb5 for GNU/Hurd, by
defining MAXHOSTNAMELEN also in function spnego_mech.c.

For this package there is not much idea to replace the MAXHOSTNAMELEN
and MAXPATHLEN definitions by using dynamic memory allocation of
strings, it is too cluttered. 

Definitions of MAXPATHLEN are found at:

(src/include/win-mac.h:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN  512)

src/clients/ksu/main.c:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64
src/lib/kadm5/logger.c:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN  256
src/tests/resolve/resolve.c:# define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 256
build/include/gssrpc/types.h:#define        MAXHOSTNAMELEN  64
src/appl/simple/client/sim_client.c:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64
src/appl/simple/server/sim_server.c:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64
src/lib/gssapi/spnego/spnego_mech.c:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 (this
src/lib/krb5/os/def_realm.c:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64

Furthermore we have the following definitions of MAXPATHLEN:
src/include/k5-int.h:# define MAXPATHLEN 4096
src/lib/krb5/os/kuserok.c:# define MAXPATHLEN 4096
src/kadmin/ktutil/ktutil_funcs.c:# define MAXPATHLEN 4096
src/clients/ksu/ksu.h:# define MAXPATHLEN 4096

and a few definitions for windows/mac, using MAXPATHLEN, _MAX_PATH and

--- a/src/lib/gssapi/spnego/spnego_mech.c       2012-01-13
22:38:44.000000000 +0100
+++ b/src/lib/gssapi/spnego/spnego_mech.c       2012-01-23
10:36:53.000000000 +0100
@@ -1106,6 +1106,9 @@
 #define HOST_PREFIX    "host@"
 #define HOST_PREFIX_LEN        (sizeof(HOST_PREFIX) - 1)
 static int
 make_NegHints(OM_uint32 *minor_status,

This patch should preferably be Debian specific and not sent upstream,
maybe added to the already existing patch:

Here I've used the Linux size of MAXHOSTNAMELEN of 64, but it seems that
there are other sizes used elsewhere, see above.

Reply to: