From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support
In-reply-to: <20190404152439.GK6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <500b1be7-d0aa-96a2-9982-d748609faff5@joeconway.com>
 <CABUevEyuNNJv=19foa=ycTfTfBUYOEwM8_Uss5OVKrwBAy+Btw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190403144332.GD6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <7b7035e0-3691-ca63-0957-25d17dc11514@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CAOuzzgrztzi+g5vfd-dtNxx+MByZcy9nMVzavYZTgvZGHx98Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5406.1554388830@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190404144818.GI6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <5945.1554389568@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190404150054.GJ6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <7566.1554391003@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190404152439.GK6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:24:40 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8475.1554391968.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:32:48 -0400
Message-ID: <8476.1554391968@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> There must be something about the x86_64 ABI that allows this to
>> accidentally work -- maybe integers are presumed to be sign-extended
>> to 64 bits by callee not caller?  I added some logging and verified
>> that pgstat.c is seeing the correct string value, so it's working
>> somehow.

> Huh, I'm not sure.  That's certainly interesting though.

Oh, no, it's simpler than that: the pointer values that
be_gssapi_get_princ() is returning just happen to be less than 2^31
on my system.  I'd dismissed that as being unlikely, but it's the truth.

> So I'm a bit surprised that it's taking 4 minutes for you.  I wonder if
> there might be an issue related to the KDC wanting to get some amount of
> random data and the system you're on isn't producing random bytes very
> fast..?

Not sure.  This is my usual development box and it also does mail, DNS,
etc for my household, so I'd expect it to have plenty of entropy.
But it's running a pretty old kernel, and old Kerberos too, so maybe
the explanation is in there somewhere.

			regards, tom lane