RFC: Buggy NSS dbm code ought to be updated
Categories
(NSS :: Libraries, defect, P5)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
People
(Reporter: ishikawa, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Reporter | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Comment 2•5 years ago
|
||
Is there any chance y'all would be interested in replacing dbm with something like LMDB (or possibly Kyoto Cabinet, LevelDB, etc) rather than simply removing it? The problem with SQLite being the only option is that applications integrating NSS that are designed around using dbm might find it prohibitively difficult to migrate to SQLite, and there are a few problems with it in situations that aren't SQL-friendly. Key value databases and relational databases are somewhat different animals.
I completely understand if y'all don't find it feasible to maintain support for two types of databases, but LMDB in particular scales very well, and is what most projects that have moved on from dbm seem to have chosen as a replacement. A high-performance, somewhat dbm-compatible replacement for key-value storage applications would be very welcome.
We might be able to produce some patches for it for our own internal use, but we'd really rather work with upstream on this if possible given that we're concerned there may be security risks involved in trying to configure NSS to use an alternate database downstream.
Comment 3•2 years ago
|
||
In the process of migrating remaining bugs to the new severity system, the severity for this bug cannot be automatically determined. Please retriage this bug using the new severity system.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•2 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jeremy Andrews from comment #2)
Is there any chance y'all would be interested in replacing dbm with something like LMDB (or possibly Kyoto Cabinet, LevelDB, etc) rather than simply removing it? The problem with SQLite being the only option is that applications integrating NSS that are designed around using dbm might find it prohibitively difficult to migrate to SQLite, and there are a few problems with it in situations that aren't SQL-friendly. Key value databases and relational databases are somewhat different animals.
I completely understand if y'all don't find it feasible to maintain support for two types of databases, but LMDB in particular scales very well, and is what most projects that have moved on from dbm seem to have chosen as a replacement. A high-performance, somewhat dbm-compatible replacement for key-value storage applications would be very welcome.
We might be able to produce some patches for it for our own internal use, but we'd really rather work with upstream on this if possible given that we're concerned there may be security risks involved in trying to configure NSS to use an alternate database downstream.
Obviously I am not the right person to ponder on these topics. Someone in the know re DB ought to make a policy decision for this.
Description
•