public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 00:42:23 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<YAUz/[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 21:49 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 29 Jan 2021, at 19:46, Jacob Champion <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think the bad news is that the static approach will need support for
> > ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY.
> 
> I did some more reading today and noticed that the NSS documentation (and their
> sample code for doing crypto without TLS connections) says to use NSS_NoDB_Init
> to perform a read-only init which don't require a matching close call.  Now,
> the docs aren't terribly clear and also seems to have gone offline from MDN,
> and skimming the code isn't entirelt self-explanatory, so I may well have
> missed something.  The v24 patchset posted changes to this and at least passes
> tests with decent performance so it seems worth investigating.

Nice! Not having to close helps quite a bit.

(Looks like thread safety for NSS_Init was added in 3.13, so we have an
absolute version floor.)

> > (It looks like the NSS implementation of pgtls_close() needs some thread
> > support too?)
> 
> Storing the context in conn would probably be better?

Agreed.

> > The good(?) news is that I don't understand why OpenSSL's
> > implementation of cryptohash doesn't _also_ need the thread-safety
> > code. (Shouldn't we need to call CRYPTO_set_locking_callback() et al
> > before using any of its cryptohash implementation?) So maybe we can
> > implement the same global setup/teardown API for OpenSSL too and not
> > have to one-off it for NSS...
> 
> No idea here, wouldn't that impact pgcrypto as well in that case?

If pgcrypto is backend-only then I don't think it should need
multithreading protection; is that right?

--Jacob

view thread (181+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox