Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 04/10] Secret manipulation step 7: Local driver

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 \