Thread: SSPI vs MingW

I just came across yet another place where MingW isn't compatible with the
windows api. Specifically, their libsecur32.a file lacks at least one
function that is needed to implement SSPI authentication. The way I can see
it, there are three ways to solve it:

1) Simply state that SSPI authentication in the backend cannot be built
with mingw, and require msvc build for it (the msvc api follows the windows
api, which is hardly surprising). We could add an autoconf test for it
that'd pick up an updated libsecur32.a file if/when mingw release an
update.

2) Ship our own secur32.def file, and automatically build an import library
for it that we can link against. Because the function is present in the DLL
file, this works fine.

3) Dynamically load the function at runtime, thus completely ignoring the
need for an import library for it.


What do people feel about these options? I'm annoyed enough with mingw
right now (after having tracked this stupid thing down) that I'm probably
not thinking clearly enough to say something myself :) Oh, and feel free to
tell me which option(s) I missed completely..

//Magnus

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I just came across yet another place where MingW isn't compatible with the
> windows api. Specifically, their libsecur32.a file lacks at least one
> function that is needed to implement SSPI authentication. The way I can see
> it, there are three ways to solve it:

Ugh.

> 1) Simply state that SSPI authentication in the backend cannot be built
> with mingw, and require msvc build for it (the msvc api follows the windows
> api, which is hardly surprising). We could add an autoconf test for it
> that'd pick up an updated libsecur32.a file if/when mingw release an
> update.

I prefer this option, if only because I have little interest in
supporting mingw any longer than necessarily, but I realise others may
want to use it so...

> 2) Ship our own secur32.def file, and automatically build an import library
> for it that we can link against. Because the function is present in the DLL
> file, this works fine.

Yuck.

> 3) Dynamically load the function at runtime, thus completely ignoring the
> need for an import library for it.

That gets my vote. It's relatively clean and non-kludgy.

Regards, Dave

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:06:59AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I just came across yet another place where MingW isn't compatible with the
> > windows api. Specifically, their libsecur32.a file lacks at least one
> > function that is needed to implement SSPI authentication. The way I can see
> > it, there are three ways to solve it:
>
> Ugh.

Indeed.

> > 1) Simply state that SSPI authentication in the backend cannot be built
> > with mingw, and require msvc build for it (the msvc api follows the windows
> > api, which is hardly surprising). We could add an autoconf test for it
> > that'd pick up an updated libsecur32.a file if/when mingw release an
> > update.
>
> I prefer this option, if only because I have little interest in
> supporting mingw any longer than necessarily, but I realise others may
> want to use it so...

Heh, well, I don't see that one going away...


> > 2) Ship our own secur32.def file, and automatically build an import library
> > for it that we can link against. Because the function is present in the DLL
> > file, this works fine.
>
> Yuck.
>
> > 3) Dynamically load the function at runtime, thus completely ignoring the
> > need for an import library for it.
>
> That gets my vote. It's relatively clean and non-kludgy.

Ok, jus so people knowing what amount of code we're talking about, here's a
patch that does this. Awaiting further comments :-)

//Magnus

Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>   
>> I just came across yet another place where MingW isn't compatible with the
>> windows api. Specifically, their libsecur32.a file lacks at least one
>> function that is needed to implement SSPI authentication. The way I can see
>> it, there are three ways to solve it:
>>     
>
> Ugh.
>   

agreed.

>   
>> 1) Simply state that SSPI authentication in the backend cannot be built
>> with mingw, and require msvc build for it (the msvc api follows the windows
>> api, which is hardly surprising). We could add an autoconf test for it
>> that'd pick up an updated libsecur32.a file if/when mingw release an
>> update.
>>     
>
> I prefer this option, if only because I have little interest in
> supporting mingw any longer than necessarily, but I realise others may
> want to use it so...
>   


I don't think it's going away any time soon. For example, it's the only 
platform I've been able to make work on my Vista box, and nobody has 
told me how to get around the problems, even though apparently some have 
managed to make MSVC work on Vista.

This is the least good option IMNSHO.

>   
>> 2) Ship our own secur32.def file, and automatically build an import library
>> for it that we can link against. Because the function is present in the DLL
>> file, this works fine.
>>     
>
> Yuck.
>
>   
>> 3) Dynamically load the function at runtime, thus completely ignoring the
>> need for an import library for it.
>>     
>
> That gets my vote. It's relatively clean and non-kludgy.
>
>
>   
Yes, I can live with this one too, although I don't think option 2 is so 
bad either.

cheers

andrew

Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> 1) Simply state that SSPI authentication in the backend cannot be built
>> with mingw, and require msvc build for it (the msvc api follows the windows
>> api, which is hardly surprising). We could add an autoconf test for it
>> that'd pick up an updated libsecur32.a file if/when mingw release an
>> update.

> I prefer this option,

+1.  I grow weary of working around so many Windows-related bugs/omissions.
        regards, tom lane