I think this block is better written as:
if (ssl_renegotiation_limit && port->count > ssl_renegotiation_limit *
1024L)
{
SSL_set_session_id_context(port->ssl, (void *) &SSL_context,
sizeof(SSL_context));
if (SSL_renegotiate(port->ssl) <= 0)
ereport(COMMERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_PROTOCOL_VIOLATION),
errmsg("SSL renegotiation failure in renegotiate")));
else
{
int handshake;
do {
handshake = SSL_do_handshake(port->ssl);
if (handshake <= 0)
ereport(COMMERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_PROTOCOL_VIOLATION),
errmsg("SSL renegotiation failure in
handshake, retrying")));
} while (handshake <= 0);
if (port->ssl->state != SSL_ST_OK)
ereport(COMMERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_PROTOCOL_VIOLATION),
errmsg("SSL failed to send renegotiation
request")));
else
port->count = 0;
}
}
In other words, retry the SSL_do_handshake() until it reports OK, but
not more than that; this seems to give better results in my (admittedly
crude) experiments. I am unsure about checking port->ssl->state after
the handshake; it's probably pointless, really.
In any case, the old code was calling SSL_do_handshake() even if
SSL_renegotiate() failed; and it was resetting the port->count even if
the handshake failed. Both of these smell like bugs to me.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
