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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: storing an explicit nonce
Date
Msg-id 20211007194719.GE24305@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: storing an explicit nonce  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct  7, 2021 at 03:38:58PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Now none of that is to say that we shouldn't limit risk - I mean less
> > risk is always better than more. But we need to be sure this is not
> > like a 90% thing, where we're pretty sure it works. We can get by with
> > that for a lot of things, but I think here we had better try
> > extra-hard to make sure that we don't have any exposures. We probably
> > will anyway, but at least if they're just bugs and not architectural
> > deficiencies, we can hope to be able to patch them as they are
> > discovered.
> 
> As long as we're clear that this initial version of TDE is with XTS then
> I really don't think we'll end up with anyone showing up and saying we
> screwed up by not generating a per-page nonce to store with it- the point
> of XTS is that you don't need that.

I am sold.  ;-)

-- 
  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: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Adjust configure to insist on Perl version >= 5.8.3.
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Adjust configure to insist on Perl version >= 5.8.3.