MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZiH7vHwEJeRKHlST@paquier.xyz> <c786e226-4039-4522-ba07-92501fce9b6a@iki.fi>
 <CAOYmi+kbYPX78nu0k7OODxUhoD6H1OXdugiMK1z9Nn33G-qdcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a0983295-67ae-487e-84e3-6e1148af3a25@iki.fi> <ZiYPmUZjcQtPz2j7@paquier.xyz>
 <feebbeee-df5f-484f-b07e-062bd0230bd2@iki.fi> <ZidKMB1tcgM3bzFZ@paquier.xyz>
 <CAOYmi+n57x+8DVi9J+dGmFQo+2Eb+bg_+geH=jqfh3E=NWHfOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaLpDVY2ywqQUfxvKEQZ+nwkabcw_f=i4Zyivt9CLjcmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+=sj+1uydS0NR4nYzw-LRWp3Q-s5speBug5UCLSPMbvGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a79ed71-b365-4b20-80bc-9c2bf97bf84b@iki.fi> <CAOYmi+kfsRfopQRTuJwpsO50Urq=-gwYDJ1fWNkDr3oYM1wdjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZspODpL6AYbANpffhbF+Q12xo1pHXrR9ZSkYfEQWpP3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+k3x-aKiVzyLfzdxFdmcBmVD8UvcwfB075BkNqyA1aa9w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+TgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b+rWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b+rWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:13:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+=TB8=yfXoBk=p0k0GPaCD79F8xXcypZFkjKmPKuT0hjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, 
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2B%3DTB8%3DyfXoBk%3Dp0k0GPaCD79F8xXcypZFkjKmPKuT0hjQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com=
> wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but why doesn't sslnegotiation
> override sslmode completely? Or alternatively, why not remove
> sslnegotiation entirely and just have more sslmode values? I mean
> maybe this shouldn't happen categorically, but if I say I want to
> require a direct SSL connection, to me that implies that I don't want
> an indirect SSL connection, and I really don't want a non-SSL
> connection.

I think that comes down to the debate upthread, and whether you think
it's a performance tweak or a security feature. My take on it is,
`direct` mode is performance, and `requiredirect` is security.
(Especially since, with the current implementation, requiredirect can
slow things down?)

> I think it's pretty questionable in 2024 whether sslmode=3Dallow and
> sslmode=3Dprefer make any sense at all. I don't think it would be crazy
> to remove them entirely. But I certainly don't think that they should
> be allowed to bleed into the behavior of new, higher-security
> configurations. Surely if I say I want direct SSL, it's that or
> nothing, right?

I agree, but I more or less lost the battle at [1]. Like Matthias
mentioned in [2]:

> I'm not sure about this either. The 'gssencmode' option is already
> quite weird in that it seems to override the "require"d priority of
> "sslmode=3Drequire", which it IMO really shouldn't.

Thanks,
--Jacob

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2B%3DcnV-8V8TndSkEF6Htqa7q=
HQUL_KnQU8-DrT0Jjnm3_Q%40mail.gmail.com
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2Wi9j5Q3mRnuoD2Hr%3DeOFV-cMz=
WAUZ88YmSXSwsiJLQOWA%40mail.gmail.com