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
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 |