Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, 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: 2016-03-16 02:17:05
Message-ID: 56E8C221.1050206@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2016-03-16 02:29:07 Re: multivariate statistics v14
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2016-03-16 02:09:59 Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion