geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 1.1.1 - Ready or not ? Soliciting input
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:09:47 GMT

On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On 8/8/06, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Inline...
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > Here are the issues that bother me most in 1.1.1.  I believe  
>> they are
>> > all also issues in 1.1.
>> >
>> > DEPLOYMENT
>> >
>> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2270
>> > - Redeploy broken when module ID does not include a type (patch
>> > available)
>> >
>> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2269
>> > - Redeploy broken when module ID does not include a version and app
>> > uses JNDI (patch available)
>> >
>> > I also just found a deploy problem with web apps with a plan  
>> with no
>> > environment, but I haven't investigated much yet.
>>
>> Why haven't the patches been committed? They need a Release Manager
>> go ahead? I certainly wouldn't classify either problem as a BLOCKER.
>> They could be fixed in 1.1.x.
>
> They haven't been committed to 1.1.1 because the release manager nixed
> it.  They'll be in 1.1.2 no matter what.
>
> In any case, we clearly need to standardize our definition of blocker.
> I think that quality issues can be blockers, and it sounds like you
> don't.  Which is OK, I guess we just need some way to decide what
> we're willing to ship with, whether that's a vote or the decision of
> the release manager or whatever.  Probably more responses to this
> thread would help.

Yes, I've noted a difference in our definitions for some time. Here  
are some definitions from the Jira system --
http://issues.apache.org/jira/ShowConstantsHelp.jspa? 
decorator=popup#PriorityLevels

I find the Priority Level definitions to be reasonably close to my own.

Quality issues can be blockers, but your redeploy problems are not.  
I'd put them as Major or Minor. By the Jira definitions, they are  
Minor. Users have a pretty reasonable work-around (Redeploy fails,  
Users can easily undeploy, then deploy).

I put some SECURITY issues in the BLOCKER category. If a user has  
followed the rules and believes that he/she has properly secured some  
resource and Geronimo permits unauthorized/unauthenticated access to  
that resource, then that's a BLOCKER...

--kevan

>
>> > SECURITY
>> >
>> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2294
>> > - For a security realm with multiple login modules, we do not  
>> handle
>> > the JAAS Control Flags correctly (e.g. we do not call the login
>> > modules using the correct logic).  Code to reproduce available.  
>> Alan
>> > had claimed a predecessor to this issue; I'm not sure if he's  
>> planning
>> > on working on this one.
>>
>> Does this problem allow unauthorized/unauthenticated access to
>> secured resources? If not, then I wouldn't categorize it as a  
>> BLOCKER.
>>
>> >
>> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2295
>> > - For a web app, if the security url-patterns don't exactly  
>> match the
>> > servlet-mapping url-patterns, we apply no security at all.  Code to
>> > reproduce available.  Alan has claimed this issue.
>>
>> That certainly seems like a must-fix BLOCKER to me...
>>
>> >
>> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1053
>> > - Likely not still a problem (reported against M5), but if it  
>> is, it
>> > sounds serious.
>>
>> Even if it does still exist, doesn't seem like a BLOCKER.
>>
>> >
>> > There are a large number of other issues out there in the  
>> "security"
>> > category, but I don't think they're all as urgent (e.g.  
>> GEORNIMO-1747,
>> > GERONIMO-2274, GERONIMO-2275, and GERONIMO-2279 probably ought  
>> to be
>> > addressed in 1.1.2 but I don't think need to hold up 1.1.1).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >     Aaron
>> >
>> > On 8/8/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> >> 1.1.1 is in a form that we can get ready to release it.  I was
>> >> talking with Aaron and he mentioned
>> >> that there were some security issues he was concerned about.  I
>> >> would like to use this thread to
>> >> identify any issues that should be considered show stoppers and
>> >> make the decision on how to move
>> >> forward.
>> >>
>> >> Please use this thread to provide that information.  What I think
>> >> we'll need to make an appropriate
>> >> assessement is:
>> >>
>> >> Issue Description
>> >> How long have we had it?  (has it existed in earlier releases and
>> >> we knew it)
>> >> Exposure
>> >> JIRA issue number tracking the issue.
>> >>
>> >> Please provide your input as quickly as possible so we can assess
>> >> how to proceed with 1.1.1.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message