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, 30 Nov 2021 19:03:54 +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]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 15:44 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > Speaking of IP addresses in SANs, it doesn't look like our OpenSSL
> > backend can handle those. That's a separate conversation, but I might
> > take a look at a patch for next commitfest.
> 
> Please do.

Didn't get around to it for November, but I'm putting the finishing
touches on that now.

While I was looking at the new SAN code (in fe-secure-nss.c,
pgtls_verify_peer_name_matches_certificate_guts()), I noticed that code
coverage never seemed to touch a good chunk of it:

> +        for (cn = san_list; cn != san_list; cn = CERT_GetNextGeneralName(cn))
> +        {
> +            char       *alt_name;
> +            int         rv;
> +            char        tmp[512];

That loop can never execute. But I wonder if all of that extra SAN code
should be removed anyway? There's this comment above it:

> +	/*
> +	 * CERT_VerifyCertName will internally perform RFC 2818 SubjectAltName
> +	 * verification.
> +	 */

and it seems like SAN verification is working in my testing, despite
the dead loop.

--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