Re: Proposed patch for key managment - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Proposed patch for key managment
Date
Msg-id 20201205154205.GA31727@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposed patch for key managment  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Proposed patch for key managment
Re: Proposed patch for key managment
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec  5, 2020 at 09:54:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:52:29PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, I worked with Sawada-san and added the attached patch.  The updated
> > full patch is at the same URL:  :-)
> > 
> >     https://github.com/postgres/postgres/compare/master...bmomjian:key.diff
> 
> Oh, I see that you use SHA256 during firstboot, which is why you
> bypass the resowner paths in cryptohash_openssl.c.  Wouldn't it be
> better to use IsBootstrapProcessingMode() then?

I tried that, but we also use the resource references before the
resource system is started even in non-bootstrap mode.  Maybe we should
be creating a resource owner for this, but it is so early in the boot
process I don't know if that is safe.

> > @@ -72,14 +72,15 @@ pg_cryptohash_create(pg_cryptohash_type type)
> >      ctx = ALLOC(sizeof(pg_cryptohash_ctx));
> >      if (ctx == NULL)
> >          return NULL;
> > +    explicit_bzero(ctx, sizeof(pg_cryptohash_ctx));
> >  
> >      state = ALLOC(sizeof(pg_cryptohash_state));
> >      if (state == NULL)
> >      {
> > -        explicit_bzero(ctx, sizeof(pg_cryptohash_ctx));
> >          FREE(ctx);
> >          return NULL;
> >      }
> > +    explicit_bzero(state, sizeof(pg_cryptohash_state));
> 
> explicit_bzero() is used to give the guarantee that any sensitive data
> gets cleaned up after an error or on free.  So I think that your use
> is incorrect here for an initialization.

It turns out what we were missing was a clear of state->resowner in
cases where the resowner was null.  I removed the bzero calls completely
and it now runs fine.

> >      if (state->evpctx == NULL)
> >      {
> > -        explicit_bzero(state, sizeof(pg_cryptohash_state));
> > -        explicit_bzero(ctx, sizeof(pg_cryptohash_ctx));
> >  #ifndef FRONTEND
> >          ereport(ERROR,
> >                  (errcode(ERRCODE_OUT_OF_MEMORY),
> 
> And this original position is IMO more correct.

Do we even need them?

> Anyway, at quick glance, the backtrace of upthread is indicating a
> double-free with an attempt to free a resource owner that has been
> already free'd.

I think that is now fixed too.  Updated patch at the same URL:

    https://github.com/postgres/postgres/compare/master...bmomjian:key.diff

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Change definitions of bitmap flags to bit-shifting style
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: automatic analyze: readahead - add "IO read time" log message