Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:34 PM Smith, Peter <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2019 7:10 PM
>
> > BTW I've created PoC patch for cluster encryption feature. Attached patch set has done some items of TODO list and some of them can be used even for finer granularity encryption. Anyway, the implemented components are followings:
>
> Hello Sawada-san,
>
> I guess your original patch code may be getting a bit out-dated by the ongoing TDE discussions, but I have done some code review of it anyway.
>
> Hopefully a few comments below can still be of use going forward:
>
> ---
>
> REVIEW COMMENTS
>
> * src/backend/storage/encryption/enc_cipher.c – For functions EncryptionCipherValue/String maybe should log warnings for unexpected values instead of silently assigning to default 0/”off”.
>
> * src/backend/storage/encryption/enc_cipher.c – For function EncryptionCipherString, purpose of returning ”unknown” if unclear because that will map back to “off” again anyway via EncryptionCipherValue. Why not just return "off" (with warning logged).
>
> * src/include/storage/enc_common.h – Typo in comment: "Encrypton".
>
> * src/include/storage/encryption.h - The macro DataEncryptionEnabled may be better to be using enum TDE_ENCRYPTION_OFF instead of magic number 0
>
> * src/backend/storage/encryption/kmgr.c - Function BootStrapKmgr will report error if USE_OPENSSL is not defined. The check seems premature because it would fail even if the user is not using encryption. Shouldn't the lack of openssl be OK when user is not using TDE at all (i.e. when encryption is "none")?
>
> * src/backend/storage/encryption/kmgr.c - In function BootStrapMgr suggest better to check if (bootstrap_data_encryption_cipher == TDE_ENCRYPTION_OFF) using enum instead of the magic number 0.
>
> * src/backend/storage/encryption/kmgr.c - The function run_cluster_passphrase_command function seems mostly a clone of an existing run_ssl_passphrase_command function. Is it possible to refactor to share the common code?
>
> * src/backend/storage/encryption/kmgr.c - The function derive_encryption_key declares a char key_len. Why char? It seems int everywhere else.
>
> * src/backend/bootstrap/bootstrap.c - Suggest better if variable declaration bootstrap_data_encryption_cipher = 0 uses enum TDE_ENCRYPTION_OFF instead of magic number 0
>
> * src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c - It looks like the default value for GUC variable data_encryption_cipher is AES128. Wouldn't "off" be the more appropriate default value? Otherwise it seems inconsistent with the logic of initdb (which insists that the -e option is mandatory if you wanted any encryption).
>
> * src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c - There is a missing entry in the config_group_names[]. The patch changed the config_group[] in guc_tables.h, so I think there needs to be a matching item in the config_group_names.
>
> * src/bin/initdb/initdb.c - The function check_encryption_cipher would disallow an encryption value of "none". Although maybe it is not very useful to say -e none, it does seem inconsistent to reject it, given that "none" was a valid value for the GUC variable data_encryption_cipher.
>
> * contrib/bloom/blinsert.c - In function btbuildempty the arguments for PageEncryptionInPlace seem in the wrong order (forknum should be 2nd).
>
> * src/backend/access/hash/hashpage.c - In function _hash_alloc_buckets the arguments for PageEncryptionInPlace seem in the wrong order (forknum should be 2nd).
>
> * src/backend/access/spgist/spginsert.c - In function spgbuildempty the arguments for PageEncryptionInPlace seem in the wrong order (forknum should be 2nd). This error looks repeated 3X.
>
> * in multiple files - The encryption enums have equivalent strings ("off", "aes-128", "aes-256") but they are scattered as string literals in many places (e.g. pg_controldata.c, initdb.c, guc.c, enc_cipher.c). Suggest it would be better to declare those as string constants in one place only.em
>

Thank you for reviewing this patch.

I've updated TDE patches. These patches implements key system, buffer
encryption and WAL encryption. Please refer to ToDo of cluster-wide
encryption for more details of design and components. It lacks
temporary file encryption and front end tools encryption. For
temporary file encryption, we are discussing which files should be
encrypted on other thread and I thought that temporary file encryption
might be related to that. So I'm currently studying the temporary
encryption patch that Antonin already submitted[1] but some changes
might be needed based on that discussion. For frontend tool support,
Shawn will share his patch that is built on my patch.

I haven't changed the usage of this feature. Please refer to the
email[2] for how to setup encrypted database cluster.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7082.1562337694%40localhost
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoBc-o%3DKZ%3DBPB5wWVNnBepqe8yqVs_D3eAd3Tr%3DX%3DtTGpQ%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada