On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 06:10:32PM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Performance is likely to be poor on large databases,
> > because every time a page transits between shared_buffers and the
> > buffer cache we've got to en/decrypt, but as long as it's only poor
> > for the people who opt into the feature I don't see a big problem with
> > that.
> It would make sense to tune the database with large shared buffers if
> encryption is enabled. That should make sure that most shared buffers
> traffic is going to disk anyway. As for performance, I have a
> prototype assembly implementation of AES that does 3GB/s/core on my
> laptop. If we add that behind a CPUID check the overhead should be
> quite reasonable.

Are you checking the CPU type or if AES instructions are enabled on the
CPU? I ask this because I just realized in researching my new TLS talk
that my BIOS defaults to AES instructions disabled, and I had to
manually enable it.

> > I anticipate that one of the trickier problems here will be handling
> > encryption of the write-ahead log.  Suppose you encrypt WAL a block at
> > a time.  In the current system, once you've written and flushed a
> > block, you can consider it durably committed, but if that block is
> > encrypted, this is no longer true.  A crash might tear the block,
> > making it impossible to decrypt.  Replay will therefore stop at the
> > end of the previous block, not at the last record actually flushed as
> > would happen today.
> My patch is currenly doing a block at a time for WAL. The XTS mode

Uh, how are you writing partial writes to the WAL.  I assume you are
doing a streaming cipher so you can write in increments, right?

> used to encrypt has the useful property that blocks that share
> identical prefix unencrypted also have identical prefix when
> encrypted. It requires that the tearing is 16B aligned, but I think
> that is true for pretty much all storage systems. That property of
> course has security downsides, but for table/index storage we have a
> nonce in the form of LSN in the page header eliminating the issue.
> > So, your synchronous_commit suddenly isn't.  A
> > similar problem will occur any other page where we choose not to
> > protect against torn pages using full page writes.  For instance,
> > unless checksums are enabled or wal_log_hints=on, we'll write a data
> > page where a single bit has been flipped and assume that the bit will
> > either make it to disk or not; the page can't really be torn in any
> > way that hurts us.  But with encryption that's no longer true, because
> > the hint bit will turn into much more than a single bit flip, and
> > rereading that page with half old and half new contents will be the
> > end of the world (TM).  I don't know off-hand whether we're
> > protecting, say, CLOG page writes with FPWs.: because setting a couple
> > of bits is idempotent and doesn't depend on the existing page
> > contents, we might not need it currently, but with encryption, every
> > bit in the page depends on every other bit in the page, so we
> > certainly would.  I don't know how many places we've got assumptions
> > like this baked into the system, but I'm guessing there are a bunch.
> I think we need to require wal_log_hints=on when encryption is
> enabled. Currently I have not considered tearing on CLOG bits. Other
> SLRUs probably have similar issues. I need to think a bit about how to
> solve that.

I am not sure if clog even needs to be encrypted.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

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

Reply via email to