From: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] GSSAPI encryption support
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:10:16 -0400
Message-ID: <jlgoag73oc7.fsf@thriss.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB7nPqTJD-tTrM1Vu8P55_4kKVeDX8DFz9v1D_XsQQvR_xA5qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <jlg1tgq1ktm.fsf@thriss.redhat.com>
<20151003161810.GD30738@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CAB7nPqTJD-tTrM1Vu8P55_4kKVeDX8DFz9v1D_XsQQvR_xA5qQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I quickly read through the patch, trying to understand what exactly is
>> happening here. To me the way the patch is split doesn't make much sense
>> - I don't mind incremental patches, but right now the steps don't
>> individually make sense.
>
> I agree with Andres. While I looked a bit at this patch, I just had a
> look at them a whole block and not individually.
I'm hearing block from both of you! Okay, if block is desired, I'll
squish for v3. Sorry for the inconvenience.
>> On 2015-07-02 14:22:13 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> [Andres' comments]
>
> Here are some comments on top of what Andres has mentioned.
>
> --- a/configure.in
> +++ b/configure.in
> @@ -636,6 +636,7 @@ PGAC_ARG_BOOL(with, gssapi, no, [build with GSSAPI support],
> krb_srvtab="FILE:\$(sysconfdir)/krb5.keytab"
> ])
> AC_MSG_RESULT([$with_gssapi])
> +AC_SUBST(with_gssapi)
>
> I think that using a new configure variable like that with a dedicated
> file fe-secure-gss.c and be-secure-gss.c has little sense done this
> way, and that it would be more adapted to get everything grouped in
> fe-auth.c for the frontend and auth.c for the backend, or move all the
> GSSAPI-related stuff in its own file. I can understand the move
> though: this is to imitate OpenSSL in a way somewhat similar to what
> has been done for it with a rather generic set if routines, but with
> GSSAPI that's a bit different, we do not have such a set of routines,
> hence based on this argument moving it to its own file has little
> sense. Now, a move that would make sense though is to move all the
> GSSAPI stuff in its own file, for example pg_GSS_recvauth and
> pg_GSS_error for the backend, and you should do the same for the
> frontend with all the pg_GSS_* routines. This should be as well a
> refactoring patch on top of the actual feature.
My understanding is that frontend and backend code need to be separate
(for linking), so it's automatically in two places. I really don't want
to put encryption-related code in files called "auth.c" and "fe-auth.c"
since those files are presumably for authentication, not encryption.
I'm not sure what you mean about "rather generic set if routines";
GSSAPI is a RFC-standardized interface. I think I also don't understand
the last half of your above paragraph.
> diff --git a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure-gss.c
> b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure-gss.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..afea9c3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure-gss.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
> +#include <assert.h>
> You should add a proper header to those new files.
Sorry, what?
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
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: rharwood@redhat.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] GSSAPI encryption support
In-Reply-To: <jlgoag73oc7.fsf@thriss.redhat.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