|
Hi Ernest,
On 3/6/26 11:41 AM, Williams Jr.,
Ernest L. via Tech-talk wrote:
...Client
Environment
Client tool: pvxs 1.5.1
Gateway implementation: p4p 4.1.7
Is this "stock" PVXS, or the SPVA development branch?
Also, the latest P4P is 4.2.2. Could you test with this version?
wrt. gateway testing. What does the "<statusprefix>asTest"
RPC call show? This call should return the identity which p4p.gw
would use for ACF decisions.
https ://epics-base.github.io/p4p/gw.html#status-pvs
...
Question
Is it expected that the p4p gateway behaves differently for put
authorization depending on whether the PV was resolved
through:
No.
In
particular, should both mechanisms ultimately route the client
through the same gateway path and authorization logic, or is
there a known difference in how these endpoints are handled?
This is not expected... Unless SPVA comes into the picture, and
there are legitimately two different TCP ports. One for plain
PVA, and a second for TLS+PVA.
Our longer-term goal is to standardize on EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS,
since it works much better for containerized environments and
controlled network paths. Before moving forward with that
approach, I wanted to confirm whether the behavior I am seeing
is expected or if I might be missing something in the gateway
configuration.
Maybe relevant, with SPVA development branch, PVXS will
understand an extended syntax to specify protocol as well as port.
export EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS="pva://1.2.3.4 pvas://1.2.3.4"
(Yes, I know it the prefix should now be "spva://", but this
schema pre-dates that name change)
If helpful, I can also provide packet traces or additional logs
from the gateway side.
Thanks very much for any guidance.
Cheers,
Ernest Williams
Dept. Head, Controls Software Engineering
Instrumentation Division, Technology Innovation Directorate
SLAC National Laboratory, Stanford University
|