| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: can we mark upper/lower/textlike functions leakproof? |
| Date: | 2024-07-31 20:10:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZhf1GzKVTnRjSefzOFvBeqFSZ1osv7WrVfw=VcrM9GDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:43 PM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> I still maintain that there is a whole host of users that would accept
> the risk of side channel attacks via existence of an error or not, if
> they could only be sure nothing sensitive leaks directly into the logs
> or to the clients. We should give them that choice.
I'm not sure what design you have in mind. A lot of possible designs
seem to end up like this:
1. You can't directly select the invisible value.
2. But you can write a plpgsql procedure that tries a bunch of things
in a loop and catches errors and uses which things error and which
things don't to figure out and return the invisible value.
And I would argue that's not really that useful. Especially if that
plpgsql procedure can extract the hidden values in like 1ms/row.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-31 20:26:00 | Re: can we mark upper/lower/textlike functions leakproof? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-31 20:07:03 | Re: pg_verifybackup: TAR format backup verification |