Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 08:12:21 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed patch for key managment
Message-ID: <20201218131221.GZ16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <X9gL7bD9idE2hoFt@paquier.xyz>
 <20201215031902.GB14596@momjian.us>
 <X9hHoQcZ11pBtgnz@paquier.xyz>
 <20201215210212.GG14596@momjian.us>
 <X9lhi1ht04I+v/rV@paquier.xyz>
 <20201216220412.GB4527@momjian.us>
 <X9qXuLekePLRYrB2@paquier.xyz>
 <20201217163954.GY16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20201217171022.GE23260@momjian.us>
 <X9v/Yo8sLB/GKLvt@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="onauP4lf+Nkbcoj3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <X9v/Yo8sLB/GKLvt@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--onauP4lf+Nkbcoj3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:10:22PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Agreed.  I think there is serious risk we would do AES in a different
> > way than OpenSSL, especially if I did it.  ;-)  We can add a native AES
> > one day if we want, but as stated by Michael Paquier, it has to be
> > tested so we are sure it returns exactly the same values as OpenSSL.
>=20
> I think that it would be good to put some generalization here, and
> look at options that are offered by other SSL libraries, like libnss
> so as we don't finish with a design that restricts the use of a given
> feature only to OpenSSL.

While I agree with the general idea proposed here, I don't know that we
need to push super hard on it to be somehow perfect right now because it
simply won't be until we actually add support for another library, and I
don't think that's really this patch's responsibility.

So, yes, let's lay the groundwork and structure and perhaps spend a bit
of time looking at other libraries, but not demand this patch also add
support for a second library today, and accept that that means that the
structure we put in place may not end up being exactly perfect.

Thanks,

Stephen

--onauP4lf+Nkbcoj3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=RDNl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--onauP4lf+Nkbcoj3--