From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Subject: | Re: Refactor SCRAM code to dynamically handle hash type and key length |
Date: | 2022-12-14 13:39:43 |
Message-ID: | d3f337e5-9997-f38f-77ca-2c27e9ca97f5@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.12.22 03:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This patch passes check-world and the CI is green. I have tested as
> well the patch with SCRAM verifiers coming from a server initially on
> HEAD, so it looks pretty solid seen from here, being careful of memory
> leaks in the frontend, mainly.
The changes from local arrays to dynamic allocation appear to introduce
significant complexity. I would reconsider that. If we consider your
reasoning
> While investigating on what it would take to extend SCRAM to use new
> hash methods (say like the RFC draft for SCRAM-SHA-512), I have been
> quickly reminded of the limitations created by SCRAM_KEY_LEN, which is
> the key length that we use in the HMAC and hash computations when
> creating a SCRAM verifier or when doing a SASL exchange.
then the obvious fix there is to change the definition of SCRAM_KEY_LEN
to PG_SHA512_DIGEST_LENGTH, which would be a much smaller and simpler
change. We don't have to support arbitrary key sizes, so a fixed-size
array seems appropriate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-12-14 15:15:14 | Re: static assert cleanup |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2022-12-14 13:28:46 | Re: Allow batched insert during cross-partition updates |