Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Harden be-gssapi-common.h for headerscheck

  2. Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

  1. pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2021-11-16T16:33:02Z

    Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

Broken by 31c389d8de91

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/ad26ee28250c4cd357a7420161a2be321c3dd536

Modified Files
--------------
src/include/replication/worker_internal.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

  2. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2021-11-16T17:09:36Z

    On 2021-Nov-16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

The other failure is in src/include/libpq/be-gssapi-common.h:

In file included from /tmp/headerscheck.a6f0um/test.c:2:
./src/include/libpq/be-gssapi-common.h:20:10: fatal error: gssapi/gssapi.h: No existe el fichero o el directorio
   20 | #include <gssapi/gssapi.h>
      |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.

One possible solution for this one is to add an exclusion in
headerscheck (and cpluspluscheck?); the other possible solution seems to
be to wrap the whole contents of the file in "#ifdef ENABLE_GSS".  I
think the latter is roughly the approach used for OpenSSL inclusions.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera           39°49'30"S 73°17'W  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

  3. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2021-11-16T17:14:31Z

    Greetings,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 
> > Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h
> 
> The other failure is in src/include/libpq/be-gssapi-common.h:
> 
> In file included from /tmp/headerscheck.a6f0um/test.c:2:
> ./src/include/libpq/be-gssapi-common.h:20:10: fatal error: gssapi/gssapi.h: No existe el fichero o el directorio
>    20 | #include <gssapi/gssapi.h>
>       |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> compilation terminated.
> 
> One possible solution for this one is to add an exclusion in
> headerscheck (and cpluspluscheck?); the other possible solution seems to
> be to wrap the whole contents of the file in "#ifdef ENABLE_GSS".  I
> think the latter is roughly the approach used for OpenSSL inclusions.

Short answer is yes, inclusion of be-gssapi-common.h is typically
wrapped in a #ifdef, see src/backend/libpq/auth.c

Thanks,

Stephen

  4. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2021-11-16T17:33:46Z

    On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:

> Short answer is yes, inclusion of be-gssapi-common.h is typically
> wrapped in a #ifdef, see src/backend/libpq/auth.c

It'd be as in the attached, then.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

  5. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2021-11-16T17:47:59Z

    Greetings,

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:33 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
wrote:

> On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Short answer is yes, inclusion of be-gssapi-common.h is typically
> > wrapped in a #ifdef, see src/backend/libpq/auth.c
>
> It'd be as in the attached, then.


I’ve not looked at this very closely but no, normally it’s the inclusion of
be-gssapi-common.h that’s wrapped in the ifdef, not the contents of it,
again, see auth.c

Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if GSSAPI
is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c

If there isn’t any need to be-gssapi-common.h then maybe just drop that
include instead of adding an ifdef..?

Thanks,

Stephen

>

  6. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2021-11-16T18:01:54Z

    On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:

> I’ve not looked at this very closely but no, normally it’s the inclusion of
> be-gssapi-common.h that’s wrapped in the ifdef, not the contents of it,
> again, see auth.c

I don't think you read my original post very carefully.  I'm talking
about sanitizing the output of the headerscheck script.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera           39°49'30"S 73°17'W  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Java is clearly an example of money oriented programming"  (A. Stepanov)

  7. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2021-11-16T18:16:45Z

    On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:

> Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
> be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if GSSAPI
> is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
> other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c

BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
script.  After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
answer too.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

  8. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2021-11-16T18:57:15Z

    Greetings,

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 13:16 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
wrote:

> On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
> > be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if
> GSSAPI
> > is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
> > other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c
>
> BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
> rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
> script.  After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
> answer too.


Yeah, that seems better to me, though I’ve not yet had time to look deeply
into any of this.

Thanks,

Stephen

>

  9. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-11-16T20:12:07Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
>> be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if GSSAPI
>> is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
>> other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c

> BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
> rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
> script.  After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
> answer too.

I think adding #ifdef ENABLE_GSS as per your prior message is better.
Headers have little business making assumptions about the context in
which they're included --- which is exactly why headerscheck exists ---
so I disagree with Stephen's argument.  In any case I am not in favor of
making random exclusions from that script's testing.

			regards, tom lane

  10. Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2021-11-16T20:16:13Z

    Greetings,

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 15:12 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of
> including
> >> be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if
> GSSAPI
> >> is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
> >> other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c
>
> > BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
> > rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
> > script.  After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
> > answer too.
>
> I think adding #ifdef ENABLE_GSS as per your prior message is better.
> Headers have little business making assumptions about the context in
> which they're included --- which is exactly why headerscheck exists ---
> so I disagree with Stephen's argument.  In any case I am not in favor of
> making random exclusions from that script's testing.


I don’t feel all that strongly either way, so if you’d rather have it that
way then that’s fine.  Will still need the other ifdefs too anyway though,
but I guess it isn’t that big of a deal.

Thanks,

Stephen