On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 08:40:17AM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 22:15, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > Yes, that's the direction that I was thinking also and specifically with > > XTS as the encryption algorithm to allow us to exclude the LSN but keep > > everything else, and to address the concern around the nonce/tweak/etc > > being the same sometimes across multiple writes. Another thing to > > consider is if we want to encrypt zero'd page. There was a point > > brought up that if we do then we are encrypting a fair bit of very > > predictable bytes and that's not great (though there's a fair bit about > > our pages that someone could quite possibly predict anyway based on > > table structures and such...). I would think that if it's easy enough > > to not encrypt zero'd pages that we should avoid doing so. Don't recall > > offhand which way zero'd pages were being handled already but thought it > > made sense to mention that as part of this discussion. > > Yeah, I wanted to mention that. I don't see any security difference > between fully-zero pages, pages with headers and no tuples, and pages > with headers and only a few tuples. If any of those are insecure, they > all are. Therefore, I don't see any reason to treat them differently. > > > We had to special case zero pages and not encrypt them because as far as I can > tell, there is no atomic way to extend a file and initialize it to Enc(zero) > in > the same step.
Oh, good point. Yeah, we will need to handle that. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
