On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 03:29:13PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:22 AM Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > > > Wouldn't Tom's proposal to use a stream cipher fix all this?
> > >
> > > Yes it would make the extra alignment unnecessary, but our solution tries to
> > > meet specific requirements of disk encryption. Stream cipher appears to be
> > > incompatible with these requirements:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_encryption_theory
> >
> > Hmm. Well, I don't know what to do about that, but I think this patch
> > is going to be facing an uphill battle if the encrypted and
> > unencrypted WAL formats use different alignment.
>
> Once you said this could be a problem, I thought about it a bit more. The link
> above tells that stream cipher is not good for disk encryption because it's
> risky to encrypt different data (e.g. old an new version of disk sector) with
> the same key (or rather with the same combination of key and initialization
> vector).
>
> However WAL is a special case because here we should never need to change the
> data at given position. The only exception is that unused space (sequence of
> zeroes) becomes a valid record. So if we avoid encryption of the unused space,
> it might be o.k. to use the stream cipher for WAL.
Agreed. Requirement #2 is not needed for WAL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_encryption_theory#Problem_definition
2. Data retrieval and storage should both be fast operations, no
matter where on the disk the data is stored.
because you are not writing into random parts of the WAL.
Using the same stream cipher system that SSH uses would make sense,
since it is byte-oriented, and it only encrypts the tail.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +