| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries) |
| Date: | 2018-12-27 02:55:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznuXsWmjnvbt=odKMVxpj1zutgzRb7s6Vu3VPXCjejS5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 6:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The point here is not to be cryptographically strong at every single
> place where the backend might want a random number; I think we're
> all agreed that we don't need that. To me, the point is to ensure that
> the user-accessible random sequence is kept separate from internal uses,
> and the potential security exposure in the new random-logging patch is
> what justifies getting more worried about this than we were before.
I agree that that's the point here.
> Now, we could probably fix that with some less intrusive patch than
> #define'ing random() --- in particular, if we give drandom and setseed
> their own private PRNG state, we've really fixed the security exposure
> without need to change anything else anywhere. So maybe we should
> just do that and be happy.
+1. I don't like the idea of #define'ing random() myself.
We're already making fairly broad assumptions about our having control
of the backend's PRNG state within InitProcessGlobals(). How should
this affect the new drandom()/setseed() private state, if at all?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-27 04:32:57 | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-12-27 02:46:30 | Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree |