Re: Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu>, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Preliminary GSSAPI Patches
Date: 2007-06-23 12:53:03
Message-ID: 467D17AF.5020500@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Henry B. Hotz (hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu) wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> Most likely it's just checking the keytab to find a principal with the
>>>> same name as the one presented from the client. Since one is
>>>> present, it
>>>> loads it up automatically, and verifies against it.
>>> Bingo!
>>>
>>> The server uses the keytab to decrypt the token provided by the
>>> client. By using the GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL arg on the server anything
>>> put in the keytab is OK. (The server doesn't need to authenticate
>>> itself to Kerberos, it just accepts authentication. Mutual
>>> authentication is done using the same keys.) The documentation needs
>>> to reflect that.
>> I agree there's some disconnect there between the documentation and the
>> apparent implementation but I'm not sure I'm in favor of changing the
>> documentation on this one. Personally, I'd rather it return an error if
>> someone tries to use GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL when accepting a context than
>> to just be happy using anything in the keytab.
>
> How about doing both, then? Set the principal name if it's specified in
> the config file. If it's explicitly set to an empty string, use
> GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL. Seems straightforward enough to me, and shouldn't
> be hard to implement.

Here's an updated patch that does this.

//Magnus

Attachment Content-Type Size
gssapi.patch text/x-patch 29.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-06-24 09:23:59 Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
Previous Message Greg Smith 2007-06-23 08:59:27 Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3