Re: storing an explicit nonce - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: storing an explicit nonce
Date
Msg-id 20210526021146.GS3048@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: storing an explicit nonce  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: storing an explicit nonce
Re: storing an explicit nonce
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 09:58:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 09:42:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > The nonce needs to be a new one, if we include the hint bits in the set
> > > of data which is encrypted.
> > > 
> > > However, what I believe folks are getting at here is that we could keep
> > > the LSN the same, but increase the nonce when the hint bits change, but
> > > *not* WAL log either the nonce change or the hint bit change (unless
> > > it's being logged for some other reason, in which case log both), thus
> > > reducing the amount of WAL being produced.  What would matter is that
> > > both the hint bit change and the new nonce hit disk at the same time, or
> > > neither do, or we replay back to some state where the nonce and the hint
> > > bits 'match up' so that the page decrypts (and the integrity check
> > > works).
> > 
> > How do we prevent torn pages if we are writing the page with a new
> > nonce, and no WAL-logged full page image?
> 
> err, we'd still WAL the FPI, same as we do for checksums, that's what I
> would expect and would think we'd need.  As long as the FPI is in the
> WAL since the last checkpoint, later changes to hint bits or the nonce
> wouldn't matter- we'll replay the FPI and that'll have the right nonce
> for the hint bits that were part of the FPI.
> 
> Any subsequent changes to the hint bits wouldn't be WAL'd though and
> neither would the changes to the nonce and that all should be fine
> because we'll blow away the entire page on crash recovery to push it
> back to what it was when we first wrote the page after the last
> checkpoint.  Naturally, other changes which have to be WAL'd would still
> be done but those would be replayed in shared buffers on top of the
> prior FPI and the nonce set to some $new value (one which we know
> couldn't have been used prior, by incrementing by some value) when we go
> to write out that new page.

OK, I see what you are saying.  If we use a nonce that is not the full
page write LSN then we can use it for hint bit changes _after_ the first
full page write during the checkpoint, and we don't need to WAL log that
since it isn't a real LSN and we can throw it away on crash recovery. 
This is not possible if we are using the LSN for the full page write LSN
for the hint bit nonce, though we could use a dummy WAL record to
generate an LSN for this, right?

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

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Incorrect GUC descriptions in docs and postgresql.conf.sample
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce