Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robbie Harwood <rharwood(at)redhat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support
Date: 2015-10-22 11:48:22
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTfLmQpF7hJyd_UspOLtu1GFpXzMSyV6grk7iNeuxUpPQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-10-22 16:47:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hm, and that's why you chose this way of going. My main concern about
>> this patch is that it adds on top of the existing Postgres protocol a
>> layer to encrypt and decrypt the messages between server and client
>> based on GSSAPI. All messages transmitted between client and server
>> are changed to 'g' messages on the fly and switched back to their
>> original state at reception. This is symbolized by the four routines
>> you added in the patch in this purpose, two for frontend and two for
>> backend, each one for encryption and decryption. I may be wrong of
>> course, but it seems to me that this approach will not survive
>> committer-level screening because of the fact that context-level
>> things invade higher level protocol messages.
>
> Agreed. At least one committer here indeed thinks this approach is not
> acceptable (and I've said so upthread).

OK, so marked as returned with feedback.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message José Luis Tallón 2015-10-22 12:48:16 Re: Duplicated assignment of slot_name in walsender.c
Previous Message Amit Langote 2015-10-22 09:37:44 Re: pgbench throttling latency limit