Re: Refactoring HMAC in the core code

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Refactoring HMAC in the core code
Date: 2020-12-19 00:43:20
Message-ID: 20201219004320.GA16968@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:42:02PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Please note that on a related thread that I have begun yesterday,
> > Heikki has suggested some changes in the way we handle the opaque data
> > used by each cryptohash implementation.
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6ebe7f1f-bf37-2688-2ac1-a081d278367c@iki.fi
> >
> > As the design used on this thread for HMAC is similar to what I did
> > for cryptohashes, it would be good to conclude first on the interface
> > there, and then come back here so as a consistent design is used. As
> > a whole, I don't think that there is any need to rush for this stuff.
> > I would rather wait more and make sure that we agree on an interface
> > people are happy enough with.
>
> Others are waiting to continue working. I am not going to hold up a
> patch over a one function, two-line API issue. I will deal with
> whatever new API you choose, and mine will work fine using the OpenSSL
> API until I do.

I will also point out that my patch is going to be bigger and bigger,
and harder to review, the longer I work on it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-12-19 00:52:19 Re: Incorrect allocation handling for cryptohash functions with OpenSSL
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-12-19 00:42:02 Re: Refactoring HMAC in the core code