Re: Server ignores contents of SASLInitialResponse

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server ignores contents of SASLInitialResponse
Date: 2017-06-04 22:49:52
Message-ID: 20170604224952.GA1547780@rfd.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:58:40PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:04:47AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52:23AM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Michael Paquier
> > > <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> > > >> On 05/24/2017 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > >>> I have noticed today that the server ignores completely the contents
> > > >>> of SASLInitialResponse. ... Attached is a patch to fix the problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fixed, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the commit.
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't think that we are completely done here. Using the
> > > patch of upthread to enforce a failure on SASLInitialResponse, I see
> > > that connecting without SSL causes the following error:
> > > psql: FATAL: password authentication failed for user "mpaquier"
> > > But connecting with SSL returns that:
> > > psql: duplicate SASL authentication request
> > >
> > > I have not looked at that in details yet, but it seems to me that we
> > > should not take pg_SASL_init() twice in the scram authentication code
> > > path in libpq for a single attempt.
> >
> > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
> >
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Heikki,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> > toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
> >
> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
>
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
2017-06-05 23:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-06-04 23:00:04 Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Previous Message Noah Misch 2017-06-04 22:45:47 Re: Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode