| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries) |
| Date: | 2018-12-27 19:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | 9585.1545939214@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 6:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Now, we could probably fix that with some less intrusive patch than
>> #define'ing random() --- in particular, if we give drandom and setseed
>> their own private PRNG state, we've really fixed the security exposure
>> without need to change anything else anywhere. So maybe we should
>> just do that and be happy.
> +1. I don't like the idea of #define'ing random() myself.
> We're already making fairly broad assumptions about our having control
> of the backend's PRNG state within InitProcessGlobals(). How should
> this affect the new drandom()/setseed() private state, if at all?
I would think that InitProcessGlobals would initialize drandom's
seed alongside random()'s seed. Hopefully to values not easily
predictable from each other -- see also Munro's comment, which
I'll respond to in a moment.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-27 19:36:33 | Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-27 19:30:21 | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |