From: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:36:19 -0400
Message-ID: <jlgwpufj7h8.fsf@thriss.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151022090026.GB8952@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: <jlg1tcw6owo.fsf@thriss.redhat.com>
<CAMsr+YH0jamGmOM=mwziYQg=J-0XVp4BosPEv1n+UMaNMj4aMA@mail.gmail.com>
<20151016133459.GL3685@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CAMsr+YG1+HQ-V_kdBKkFX+XRV+bND0pJOygns-nbAuHEn2pj2w@mail.gmail.com>
<20151017021105.GP3685@tamriel.snowman.net>
<jlgwpuin3fm.fsf@thriss.redhat.com>
<CAB7nPqT+URED7yZUPc_Soj=vfhf_r7MJD7=VonWpOFiiJE6zgg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB7nPqTL1SjaYn7pwb86mW1M+469=ofyyRt1Oh9dyFC_bAf_iw@mail.gmail.com>
<jlgbnbskwya.fsf@thriss.redhat.com>
<CAB7nPqSRFG=U3Q_R-7FPvMjNH4TsGfTdZPa7c6x868iw_h0cvw@mail.gmail.com>
<20151022090026.GB8952@awork2.anarazel.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-10-22 16:47:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hm, and that's why you chose this way of going. My main concern about
>> this patch is that it adds on top of the existing Postgres protocol a
>> layer to encrypt and decrypt the messages between server and client
>> based on GSSAPI. All messages transmitted between client and server
>> are changed to 'g' messages on the fly and switched back to their
>> original state at reception. This is symbolized by the four routines
>> you added in the patch in this purpose, two for frontend and two for
>> backend, each one for encryption and decryption. I may be wrong of
>> course, but it seems to me that this approach will not survive
>> committer-level screening because of the fact that context-level
>> things invade higher level protocol messages.
>
> Agreed. At least one committer here indeed thinks this approach is not
> acceptable (and I've said so upthread).
Okay, I'll make some changes. Before I do, though, since this is not
the approach I came up with, can you explicitly state what you're
looking for here? It subjectively seems that I'm getting a lot of
feedback of "this feels wrong" without suggestion for improvement.
To be clear, what I need to know is:
- What changes do you want to see in the wire protocol? (And how will
fallback be supported if that's affected?)
- Since this seems to be an important sticking point, what files am I
encouraged to change (or prohibited from changing)? (Fallback makes
this complex.)
- I've been assuming that we care about fallback, but I'd like to be
told that it's something postgres actually wants to see because it's
the most intricate part of these changes. (I'm reasonably confident
that the code becomes simpler without it, and I myself have no use for
it.)
If I understand what you're asking for (and the above is intended to be
sure that I will), this will not be a trivial rework, so I want to be
really sure before doing that because writing this code a third time is
something I don't relish.
Thanks,
--Robbie
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, andres@anarazel.de, michael.paquier@gmail.com, sfrost@snowman.net, craig@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support
In-Reply-To: <jlgwpufj7h8.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