Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqQkLj1rbjv5_MiER0-Snmpv2nQDEXMiO1QFY3==noCk1A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Ответы Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP  (Victor Wagner <vitus@wagner.pp.ru>)
Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:
> 1) Serialize the certificates, key, and CRL and write them to the
> backend_var temp file and then deserialize everything in the backends.
>
> Sounds like you would need to write some code for every SSL library to
> support the serialization and deserialization, which I am not a fan of doing
> just for one platform since I worry about little used code paths.
> Additionally this would mean that we write a copy of the private key to
> potentially another file system than the one where the private key is
> stored, this sounds like a bad idea from a security point of view.

Yeah... This would result in something that is heavily SSL-dependent,
which would be an additional maintenance pain when trying to support
future OpenSSL versions.

> 2) Copy all the SSL related files into the data directory at SIGHUP, before
> loading them. While this does not require any serialization of certificates
> it still has the problem of writing private keys to disk.

You expressed enough concern about that upthread, copying private keys
into PGDATA is a security concern.

> 3) Leave my patch as it is now. This means the postmaster will reload
> certificates on SIGHUP while the backends will also load them when spawning.
> This means windows will continue to work the same as before my patch.
>
> Is there any other way to pass the current set of loaded certificates and
> keys from the postmaster to the backends on Windows? I guess you could use a
> pipe, but if so we should probably send all data on this pipe, not just the
> SSL stuff.
>
> I am leaning towards doing (3) but I know I am biased since it is less work
> and I do not care much for Windows.

Seriously... The benefit of this feature is clear for a lot of people.
And the implementation dedicated only to Windows would just result in
a grotty thing anyway. So I'd say that at this point we could just
push for 3) and facilitate the life of most with SSL configuration.
The behavior across platforms needs to be properly documented for
sure.
-- 
Michael



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Stas Kelvich
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Speedup twophase transactions
Следующее
От: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take