Re: Protocol problem with GSSAPI encryption?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Protocol problem with GSSAPI encryption?
Date: 2019-12-04 05:24:41
Message-ID: 20191204052440.GD6962@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Andrew Gierth (andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk) wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
> >> It seems to me that this is a bug in ProcessStartupPacket, which
> >> should accept both GSS or SSL negotiation requests on a connection
> >> (in either order). Maybe secure_done should be two flags rather than
> >> one?
>
> Peter> I have also seen reports of that. I think your analysis is
> Peter> correct.
>
> I figure something along these lines for the fix. Anyone in a position
> to test this?

At least at first blush, I tend to agree with your analysis and patch.

I'll see about getting this actually set up and tested in the next week
or so (and maybe there's some way to also manage to have a regression
test for it..).

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-12-04 05:33:07 Re: Session WAL activity
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-12-04 05:12:27 Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test