Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM
Date: 2020-11-03 10:35:18
Message-ID: 20201103103518.GC2298@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:15:48AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> That's certainly true. The intention though is to make the code easier to
>> follow (more explicit/discoverable) for anyone trying to implement support for
>
> Is it really a reasonable usecase to use RAND_bytes() outside of both
> pg_stroing_random() *and' outside of the openssl-specific files (like
> be-secure-openssl.c)? Because it would only be those cases that would
> have this case, right?

It does not sound that strange to me to assume if some out-of-core
code makes use of that to fetch a random set of bytes. Now I don't
know of any code doing that. Who knows.

> If anything, perhaps the call to RAND_poll() in fork_process.c should
> actually be a call to a strong_random_initialize() or something which
> would have an implementation in pg_strong_random.c, thereby isolating
> the openssl specific code in there? (And with a void implementation
> without openssl)

I don't think that we have any need to go to such extent just for this
case, as RAND_poll() after forking a process is irrelevant in 1.1.1.
We are still many years away from removing its support though.

No idea if other SSL implementations would require such a thing.
Daniel, what about NSS?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-11-03 10:48:54 Re: hash_array_extended() needs to pass down collation
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-11-03 09:47:14 Re: [PATCH] remove deprecated v8.2 containment operators