public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: David Steele <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Allow root ownership of client certificate key
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:44:29 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On 1/18/22 15:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> I took a quick look at this and agree with the proposed behavior
> change, but also with your self-criticisms:
> 
>> We may want to do the same on the server side to make the code blocks
>> look more similar.
>>
>> Also, on the server side the S_ISREG() check gets its own error and that
>> might be a good idea on the client side as well. As it is, the error
>> message on the client is going to be pretty confusing in this case.
> 
> Particularly, I think the S_ISREG check should happen before any
> ownership/permissions checks; it just seems saner that way.

I was worried about doing too much refactoring in this commit since I 
have hopes and dreams of it being back-patched. But I'll go ahead and do 
that and if any part of this can be back-patched we'll consider that 
separately.

> The only other nitpick I have is that I'd make the cross-references be
> to the two file names, ie like "Note that similar checks are performed
> in fe-secure-openssl.c ..."  References to the specific functions seem
> likely to bit-rot in the face of future code rearrangements.
> I suppose filename references could become obsolete too, but it
> seems less likely.

It's true that functions are more likely to be renamed, but when I 
rename a function I then search for all the places where it is used so I 
can update them. If the function name appears in a comment that gets 
updated as well.

If you would still prefer filenames I have no strong argument against 
that, just wanted to explain my logic.

Regards,
-David

view thread (3+ 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]
  Subject: Re: Allow root ownership of client certificate key
  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