| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM |
| Date: | 2020-11-05 03:44:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20201105034413.GE1632@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:05:48AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Yes, we should absolutely do that. We already do this for
> pg_strong_random() itself, and we should definitely repeat the pattern
> in the init function.
This poked at my curiosity, so I looked at it. The result looks
indeed like an improvement to me, while taking care of the point of
upthread to make the implementation stuff controlled only by
USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM. Per se the attached.
This could make random number generation predictible when an extension
calls directly RAND_bytes() if USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM is not used while
building with OpenSSL, but perhaps I am just too much of a pessimistic
nature.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| openssl_random_macros_v2.patch | text/x-diff | 2.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Pirotte | 2020-11-05 03:46:13 | Re: Any objections to implementing LogicalDecodeMessageCB for pgoutput? |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-11-05 03:15:59 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |