Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks

From: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks
Date: 2016-03-18 13:26:50
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Re: Peter Eisentraut 2016-03-16 <56E8C221(dot)1050206(at)gmx(dot)net>
> >> * 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?

I'm fine with that change.

Do you want me to update the patch or do you already have a new
version, given it's marked as Ready for Committer?

cb(at)df7cb(dot)de |

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-03-18 13:31:33 Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Previous Message David Rowley 2016-03-18 13:16:51 Re: Parallel Aggregate