| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt |
| Date: | 2016-09-30 12:15:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20160930151539.769e8837@e754 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello.
Since there are plans/efforts to introduce additional authorization
methods in nearest feature I suggest to refactor the code so it
wouldn't mention md5 when it possible. `md5Salt` for instance could be
not only "md5 salt" but also "sha2 salt", etc - depending on what
authorization method was chosen.
Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more
general `pwsalt`.
Does it sound reasonable?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pwsalt-v1.patch | text/x-patch | 4.3 KB |
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt |
| Date: | 2016-09-30 12:40:56 |
| Message-ID: | [email protected] |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more
> general `pwsalt`.
> Does it sound reasonable?
I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing that port->md5Salt
can serve other purposes is its fixed size. I think you're likely
going to have to change that representation at some point (eg
make it a separately-palloc'd field). My inclination would be to
do the field renaming at the same time you change the representation,
since that provides a convenient way to ensure you've caught every
place that has to change.
regards, tom lane
| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt |
| Date: | 2016-09-30 12:58:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQqQAR7N4w+KCyW+rsswfjfHN40SSJSFEL=n8Wt+hOBgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more
>> general `pwsalt`.
>> Does it sound reasonable?
>
> I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing that port->md5Salt
> can serve other purposes is its fixed size. I think you're likely
> going to have to change that representation at some point (eg
> make it a separately-palloc'd field). My inclination would be to
> do the field renaming at the same time you change the representation,
> since that provides a convenient way to ensure you've caught every
> place that has to change.
SCRAM is going to use more than 4 bytes here. RFC5802 does not given
directly a length, the last set of patches has been using 10 bytes,
but at the end we are very likely to use more than that, and not 4 for
sure.
--
Michael