From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: use of the term "verifier" with SCRAM
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 21:48:37 +0200
Message-ID: <e7b54a17-462e-4308-e2a0-1edb788e0067@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191010080316.GI1852@paquier.xyz>
References: <be397b06-6e4b-ba71-c7fb-54cae84a7e18@2ndquadrant.com>
<fbb1575d-6c68-0bb1-46e8-3df49298963c@iki.fi>
<73ba767c-f7dc-ce9e-3810-0daa184918a0@2ndquadrant.com>
<20191010080316.GI1852@paquier.xyz>
On 2019-10-10 10:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:08:37AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Here is my proposed patch to adjust this.
>
> Looks fine to me reading through. I think that you are right to not
> change the descriptions in build_server_final_message(), as that's
> described similarly in RFC 5802.
committed
> By renaming scram_build_verifier()
> to scram_build_secret() you are going to break one of my in-house
> extensions. I am using it to register for a user SCRAM veri^D^D^D^D
> secrets with custom iteration and salt length :)
OK, that should be easy to work around with an #ifdef or two.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, hlinnaka@iki.fi
Subject: Re: use of the term "verifier" with SCRAM
In-Reply-To: <e7b54a17-462e-4308-e2a0-1edb788e0067@2ndquadrant.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox