On Feb 28, 2009, at 12:43, Theodore Tso wrote: > It might be possible to dispatch on krb5_keyblock->magic to determine > whether it the new fields are there, and in places where a passed in > krb5_keyblock is allocated on the stack, the called function could > allocate a new-style krb5_keyblock and import the key. (How many such > places are there? I didn't think there would be that many.) It > wouldn't be that pretty, yes, but if it's considered important to > preserve the ABI, it's probably doable...
Yeah, that's been considered. It's a little risky in that sometimes the "magic" field just isn't initialized (especially in an application- provided keyblock), and adding a dependence on it (at least on it *not* having a certain 32-bit value that indicates the extended form) would be a minor ABI change. I think the risk is probably low, and it'd probably be worth the extra ugliness to get the benefits. We'd also still need to handle the krb5_keyblock structure embedded in krb5_creds; in that instance it wouldn't be extensible. It'd be so nice to be able to do a new API for a v2.0 someday. :-) Ken ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos