From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM |
Date: | 2020-11-05 23:36:32 |
Message-ID: | 20201105233632.GA21123@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 01:59:11PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Not yet, and potentially never will. Given the consequences of a PRNG which
> hasn't been properly initialized I think it's ok to be defensive in this
> codepath however.
+ /*
+ * In case the backend is using the PRNG from OpenSSL without being built
+ * with support for OpenSSL, make sure to perform post-fork initialization.
+ * If the backend is using OpenSSL then we have already performed this
+ * step. The same version caveat as discussed in the comment above applies
+ * here as well.
+ */
+#ifndef USE_OPENSSL
+ RAND_poll();
+#endif
I still don't see the point of this extra complexity, as
USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM implies USE_OPENSSL, and we also call RAND_poll() a
couple of lines down in the main function under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM.
So I would just remove this whole block, and replace the comment by a
simple "initialization already done above".
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2020-11-05 23:57:29 | RE: extension patch of CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-11-05 23:31:52 | Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |