Re: [Bug-wget] Implementing draft to update RFC6265

[Kushagra Singh]

Hi,



On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Darshit Shah <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 27 January 2016 at 20:52, Kushagra Singh
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Tim Ruehsen <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > What about the '#ifdef HAVE_SSL' ? Don't we need the check always ?
> >>
> >> Sorry for my irritating text. What I tried to ask/say was "Do we need
> the
> >> #ifdef in cookie_handle_set_cookie() at all ?".
> >>
> >> And btw, do we need it in parse_set_cookie() ?
> >>
> >
> > I think it is required in parse_set_cookie(). It does not create a secure
> > only cookie in case the connection is insecure. Now this can happen
> because
> > of two reasons, (i) communication over simple HTTP despite wget
> configured
> > with SSL, (ii) wget configured with the "--without-ssl" option. The log
> > output in both the cases should be different, right?
>
> I don't see the point of it. Why should it be any different? In fact,
> why does the end user, who probably installed a distro-packaged
> version of Wget care about the configure options?
> Every #ifdef statement you add increases the complexity of the code
> since it changes what portion of the code is compiled. As long as the
> connection is insecure, Wget refuses to set a secure cookie, period.
> Don't overengineer the situation.
>
>
I have made the changes accordingly, not checking using preprocessor
directives now

>
> >> Darshit said it with clearer words (and I agree with him):
> >> "When a user loads a file backed cookie jar, they expect it to work
> >> according to the RFC, irrespective of whether the client supports SSL
> >> or not. And especially since support for this does not depend on the
> >> actual linking of any SSL library, it shouldn't be hard to implement."
> >>
> >
> > In this case, then can we simply remove the #ifdef check, and and the if
> > else statement check whether (scheme == SCHEME_HTTP) and not (scheme !=
> > SCHEME_HTTPS), since they would essentially mean the same. This should
> take
> > care of the problem you mention. I have attached a patch with these
> changes.
>
> Seems okay to me right now.
>
> Please prefer to not move functions around. Adding a prototype to the
> top of the file is a better option. Moving a function around like this
> causes things like git blame to not work very well.
>
> On a sidenote, I think the find_chains_of_host() method could use some
> refactoring.
>
> One is that count_char could use a library function like strchr()
> instead of trying to run a pass manually.
>

Something like the way I have done in this patch?


> Apart from that, I think some parts could use help from Libpsl.
> @Tim: When progressing to less specific domains, I think Libpsl could
> provide a way to test if we're moving into a new TLD?
>
> There's also the section with a while(1) loop that exits using a
> simple condition and a break statement. This is bad programming
> practice. We should avoid using such a pattern since it obscures the
> actual loop condition. Maybe we can refactor it slightly?
>
> >
> > A question about the way things are done in the Wget project, should I
> > attach a patch that should be applied in continuation to the last patch I
> > sent, or one generated by all the commits? The patch I have attached is
> the
> > one generated of the last commit only.
> >
> You should resend the entire patch again. So that everyone has context
> and we can simply apply the final version directly. There is no point
> in keeping a history of personal edits on the master branch.
> When you have a large change that can be logically split into
> different commits, you should have multiple patches for each of the
> commit. Think of it this way, once you're done implementing a feature
> or a bug fix, what version of your code do you want the rest of the
> world to see? The one where you made a hundred stupid errors and later
> fixed it, or just the final clean version?
>

That makes a lot of sense, thanks a lot for that!


> >
> > Kush
>
>
>
> --
> Thanking You,
> Darshit Shah
>


Thanks,
Kush


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Darshit Shah <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 27 January 2016 at 20:52, Kushagra Singh
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Tim Ruehsen <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > What about the '#ifdef HAVE_SSL' ? Don't we need the check always ?
> >>
> >> Sorry for my irritating text. What I tried to ask/say was "Do we need
> the
> >> #ifdef in cookie_handle_set_cookie() at all ?".
> >>
> >> And btw, do we need it in parse_set_cookie() ?
> >>
> >
> > I think it is required in parse_set_cookie(). It does not create a secure
> > only cookie in case the connection is insecure. Now this can happen
> because
> > of two reasons, (i) communication over simple HTTP despite wget
> configured
> > with SSL, (ii) wget configured with the "--without-ssl" option. The log
> > output in both the cases should be different, right?
>
> I don't see the point of it. Why should it be any different? In fact,
> why does the end user, who probably installed a distro-packaged
> version of Wget care about the configure options?
> Every #ifdef statement you add increases the complexity of the code
> since it changes what portion of the code is compiled. As long as the
> connection is insecure, Wget refuses to set a secure cookie, period.
> Don't overengineer the situation.
>
> >
> >> Darshit said it with clearer words (and I agree with him):
> >> "When a user loads a file backed cookie jar, they expect it to work
> >> according to the RFC, irrespective of whether the client supports SSL
> >> or not. And especially since support for this does not depend on the
> >> actual linking of any SSL library, it shouldn't be hard to implement."
> >>
> >
> > In this case, then can we simply remove the #ifdef check, and and the if
> > else statement check whether (scheme == SCHEME_HTTP) and not (scheme !=
> > SCHEME_HTTPS), since they would essentially mean the same. This should
> take
> > care of the problem you mention. I have attached a patch with these
> changes.
>
> Seems okay to me right now.
>
> Please prefer to not move functions around. Adding a prototype to the
> top of the file is a better option. Moving a function around like this
> causes things like git blame to not work very well.
>
> On a sidenote, I think the find_chains_of_host() method could use some
> refactoring.
>
> One is that count_char could use a library function like strchr()
> instead of trying to run a pass manually.
> Apart from that, I think some parts could use help from Libpsl.
> @Tim: When progressing to less specific domains, I think Libpsl could
> provide a way to test if we're moving into a new TLD?
>
> There's also the section with a while(1) loop that exits using a
> simple condition and a break statement. This is bad programming
> practice. We should avoid using such a pattern since it obscures the
> actual loop condition. Maybe we can refactor it slightly?
>
> >
> > A question about the way things are done in the Wget project, should I
> > attach a patch that should be applied in continuation to the last patch I
> > sent, or one generated by all the commits? The patch I have attached is
> the
> > one generated of the last commit only.
> >
> You should resend the entire patch again. So that everyone has context
> and we can simply apply the final version directly. There is no point
> in keeping a history of personal edits on the master branch.
> When you have a large change that can be logically split into
> different commits, you should have multiple patches for each of the
> commit. Think of it this way, once you're done implementing a feature
> or a bug fix, what version of your code do you want the rest of the
> world to see? The one where you made a hundred stupid errors and later
> fixed it, or just the final clean version?
> >
> > Kush
>
>
>
> --
> Thanking You,
> Darshit Shah
>

0001-Added-recommendations-from-draft-West.patch
Description: Text Data