Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/10/16 9:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 3/4/16 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in
> >> contradiction with what the error message indicates. This is a
> >> preexisting bug actually. Do we want to fix it by preventing a
> >> user-executable file (possibly breaking compability with existing
> >> executable key files), or do we want to document what the restriction
> >> really is?
> >
> > I think we should not check for S_IXUSR. There is no reason for doing that.
> >
> > I can imagine that key files are sometimes copied around using USB
> > drives with FAT file systems or other means of that sort where
> > permissions can scrambled. While I hate gratuitous executable bits as
> > much as the next person, insisting here would just create annoyances in
> > practice.
>
> I'm happy with this patch except this minor point. Any final comments?

No, I think you're right about that one. Feel free to commit, or I can
do it if you don't want to.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services