On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> However, is there something that's fundamentally better with the OpenSSL
> implementation? Or should we just keep *just* the #else branch in the code,
> the part we've imported from OpenBSD?

Good question. I think that we want both, giving priority to OpenSSL
if it is there. Usually their things prove to have more entropy, but I
didn't look at their code to be honest. If we only use the OpenBSD
stuff, it would be a good idea to refresh the in-core code. This is
from OpenBSD of 2002.

> TLS is complex, we don't want to do that in that case. But just the sha
> functions isn't *that* complex, is it?

No, they are not.

>> Another possibility is that we could say that SCRAM is designed to
>> work with TLS, as mentioned a bit upthread via the RFC, so we would
>> not support it in builds compiled without OpenSSL. I think that would
>> be a shame, but it would simplify all this refactoring juggling.
>> So, 3 possibilities here:
>> 1) Use a single file src/common/sha.c that includes a set of functions
>> using USE_SSL
>> 2) Have two files in src/common, one when build is used with OpenSSL,
>> and the second one when built-in methods are used
>> 3) Disable the use of SCRAM when OpenSSL is not present in the build.
>> Opinions? My heart goes for 2) because 1) is ugly, and 3) is not
>> appealing in terms of flexibility.
> I really dislike #3 - we want everybody to start using this...

OK, after hacking that for a bit I have finished with option 2 and the
set of PG-like set of routines, the use of USE_SSL in the file
containing all the SHA functions of OpenBSD has proved to be really
ugly, but with a split things are really clear to the eye. The stuff I
got builds on OSX, Linux and MSVC. pgcrypto cannot link directly to
libpgcommon.a, so I am making it compile directly with the source
files, as it is doing on HEAD.

> I'm not sure how common a build without openssl is in the real world though.
> RPMs, DEBs, Windows installers etc all build with OpenSSL. But we probably
> don't want to make it mandatory, no...

I don't think that it is this much common to have an enterprise-class
build of Postgres without SSL, but each company has always its own
reasons, so things could exist.

And I continue to move on... Thanks for the feedback.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to