>From the app/service developer perspective, I?d like to raise the issue for >removing SECURE=0 build check.
By investigating several option for secure resource setting by real execution, I can list up the three possible ways. 1) SECURE=0 build 2) SECURE=1 build, Create Resource with non-secure flag. OCCreateResource(?. uint8_t 0) 3) SECURE=1 build, Create Resource with secure flag. OCCreateResource(?. uint8_t OC_SECURE) I had expected 1), 2) to work same but I figured out they behave differently. 2) will cause crash or ACL issue. we can refer to the Jira issue (IOT-1280 ~ IOT-1291). When we build the IoTivity basic sample application and execute it, then it will due to acl requiring. Until resolve this issue, we cannot give up the SECURE=0 build. (sorry for my previous proposal) IMHO, This case (SECURE=1 build, Create Resource with non-secure flag. OCCreateResource(?. uint8_t 0)) should skip the acl checking. Or, We can make the API such as OCINIT (bool secure_setting) as like Gregg suggestion. Anyway, I?m not clearly aware how IoTivity security project or OCF security WG decided to handle it. Randeep or Nathan could you clarify it and share the plan? BR< UZe Choi From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 7:05 AM To: Dave Thaler Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] SECURE build flag setting as default configuration On Sep 20, 2016 4:27 PM, "Dave Thaler" <dthaler at microsoft.com> wrote: > > I've now thought about this some more and I am now convinced that we should > remove > support for SECURE=0 builds (in master). > > As Uze mentioned, the choice to disable security should be a config/run-time > decision, not > a compile-time decision. There is no reason to consume build resources to > build a version > that cannot even be configured to enable security. > agreed in general but I think there is still a "problem", namely that "security" conflates multiple distinct functionalities. encryption is one thing; creds are another, and ACLs yet another. fwiw imho SECURED should be removed from the build system altogether. Non-encryption security features should just always be enabled. But for debugging, something like --DISABLE_DTLS should be supported by the build logic. this suggests also that that API should be changed. OCInit should be parameterized by persistent storage, and client code should not have to separately call an init function for persistent storage. in other words there should not be two ways to get going, one for SECURED=0 and one for SECURED=1. client app code should never need to make a secured/unsecured distinction. of course apps can still designate resources as secure or not but that is a completely separate topic. my 2 cents. gregg -------------- next part -------------- HTML ?????? ??????????????... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20160921/29be3e1a/attachment.html>
