|From:||Julian Markwort <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>|
|To:||Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, arne(dot)scheffer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] pg_hba.conf : new auth option : clientcert=verify-full|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sat, 2018-03-17 at 18:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > The error message "certificate authentication failed for user XYZ:
> > client certificate contains no user name" is the result of calling
> > CheckCertAuth when the user presented a certificate without a CN in
> > it.
> That is arguably wrong, since it's actually password authentication
> that fails. That is the authentication type that was picked in
> pg_hba.conf. It's more "certificate validation" that failed.
I think we got confused about this; maybe I didn't graps it fully
before: CheckCertAuth is currently only called when auth method cert is
used. So it actually makes sense to say that certificate authentication
failed, I think.
> I agree that the log message is useful. Though it could be good to
> clearly indicate that it was caused specifically because of the
> verify-full, to differentiate it from other cases of the same
I've modified my patch so it still uses CheckCertAuth, but now a
different message is written to the log when clientcert=verify-full was
For auth method cert, the function should behave as before.
> For example, what about the scenario where I use GSSAPI
> authentication and clientcert=verify-full. Then we suddenly have
> three usernames (gssapi, certificate and specified) -- how is the
> user supposed to know which one came from the cert and which one came
> from gssapi for example?
The user will only see what's printed in the auth_failed() function in
auth.c with the addition of the logdetail string, which I don't touch
with this patch.
As you said, it makes sense that more detailed information is only
available in the server's log.
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
I'm not sure if it is preferred to keep patches as short as possible
(mostly with respect to the changed lines in the documentation) or to
organize changes so that the text matches the surrounding column width
und text flow? Also, I've omitted mentions of the current usage
'clientcert=1' - this is still supported in code, but I think telling
new users only about 'clientcert=verify-ca' and 'clientcert=verify-
full' is clearer. Or am I wrong on this one?
|Next Message||Haribabu Kommi||2018-03-23 14:49:28||Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains both host and hostaddr types|
|Previous Message||Ashutosh Bapat||2018-03-23 14:42:51||Re: Odd procedure resolution|