Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpGzb-0003Zw-AD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:37:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpGza-0000uX-Fe for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:37:22 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpGyH-0007sv-3B for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:36:01 +0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpGyC-0001RC-Lg for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:35:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07160A37E1; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:35:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unused [10.10.52.236] (may be forged)) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9MEZprw004476; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:35:52 -0400 From: Robbie Harwood To: Andres Freund , Michael Paquier Cc: Stephen Frost , PostgreSQL mailing lists , Craig Ringer Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support In-Reply-To: <20151022090026.GB8952@awork2.anarazel.de> References: <20151016133459.GL3685@tamriel.snowman.net> <20151017021105.GP3685@tamriel.snowman.net> <20151022090026.GB8952@awork2.anarazel.de> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:36:19 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Andres Freund 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 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWKPRkAAoJECUy+RdqlaRCP2gQAIVaPPDcuuECT8ICcY0rf7sm NnsZZqT/CtFPsmtsEZi4HoichvW2JKgDWxV8QgAU5iYC9rFPXiQPoKy0sr4W20Bc oEm7rWTPTC4j9vYeYz2VDUbXKDmIJaP2atS5yAKnUIltIEJvMAwsgrkqpRL1+j65 n4PfwQjJpGdfYqOZhzbNeo1FKewQD217jW+5eKNWAZQux7mmKHIsDdw5rTUrccTz cN64opFytIOOw0UMO8mvsxxs+Qt5nAGKyV4VcyRUHH8KYmJM+fBVQBbS7oGqHtgu EpnjjXNIhRbruLtv2gGMhmeu0g1BVcHMcL1dJFBVFnZJvag6e6i0MqPRvjKeVvL5 03R7LddeJCquqbNtT/P/LDy7xFuRxH18ef+8iqa1gunIkQViAR8v4j2aaL/9tiGO LYSNc++jH2yiYl2AIvCmSB+/85q0fxlJDLpnWuTkFfgH1uuv7EhVhCDGKnIF/UMJ iKy1BZ91UW4rXvOMNXsqzb5viZlH4YWGJL3wA/4dYizXf83+xXwl+ehtsTaYFvfO XNexE+HrakPGBorwJ1StWXUaSk87yPBPy6n5QKHXb7setd7+S59Ou33Oyiz9uCid OZgdP4mITPGmsiGSUWYNEX3Iz5kFwt6xT0y/pPWdjkkPltNwNHxuSAcpizeRUbhJ wSwDabnbID99e1XnwAH8 =6R0Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--