On 8/10/14 5:03 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I agree svn_checksum_to_cstring_display() is wrong name and the proper
> solution to make separated (probably) optimized function for
> converting checksum to canonical string representation. But this is
> definitely out of scope of this branch. I've gone ahead, reverted
> r1616093 from branch and implemented svn_x509_fingerprint_to_display()
> for converting cert fingerprints to display string. This is pubic and
> tested function so other Subversion clients could use it. Please let
> me know you're not happy with my solution.
Using svn_x509_fingerprint_to_display() on a svn_checksum_t makes no sense to
me. Like I said in my last email I think we should be using the colon
separators on some other places in our output that are entirely unrelated to
the X.509 parser. It seems ridiculous to suggest that those places in the
future should be calling an svn_x509 function to do this. I just really don't
see what's wrong with what I did.
Yes it creates some code churn, but I already did the work to deal with the
If the concern is about that the new function possibly outputs things wrong and
we need tests then fine let's add some tests.
If the concern is about performance then let's work on the performance.
But really it seems to me like we're just arguing about naming. If you just
really want to leave the svn_checksum_to_cstring_display() alone then fine, but
at least put whatever new public function you're making in svn_checksum_*.
> Btw I've noticed problem that svn auth ends with 'svn: E240018:
> Certificate signature mismatch' error for one of certificate stored on
> my laptop. There are two questions here:
> 1. Why Subverison fails to parse this certificate? I could email this
> certificate file privately if you're interested.
There shouldn't be any such certificate that's valid (at least that's using the
Internet profile for X.509). There are two places that the signature algorithm
are specified in the certificate. First in the Certificate sequence and again
in the TBSCertificate sequence. According to the X.509 RFC these MUST always
be the same OID (see section 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 or RFC 5280).
So yes I'd be interested in seeing the certificate.
If there really are such certificates we can loosen this check since it's not
really important to how we're using the X.509 parser right now.
> 2. May be 'svn auth' should print warning and continue on certificate
> parsing error?
Yes that should be the case.
Received on 2014-08-10 16:34:22 CEST