Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Date
Msg-id 9eb77e92-826d-666f-6a9b-c8a63c719ddd@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/26/17 20:05, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I have now implemented this in the attached patch (plus added support 
> for channel binding and rebased it) but I ran into one issue which I 
> have not yet solved. The script for the windows version takes the 
> --with-openssl=<path> switch so that cannot just be translated to a 
> single --with-ssl switch. Should to have both --with-openssl and 
> --with-gnutls or --with-ssl=(openssl|gnutls) and --with-ssl-path=<path>? 
> I also do not know the Windows build code very well (or really at all).

This patch appears to work well.

As I had mentioned previously, I'm not fond of changing the existing
configure flags, and given the above issue, I'd just leave everything as
is and add --with-gnutls.

The patch contains a purported GUC variable gnutls_priority, but it is
not documented or used anywhere.

There are some test cases that are marked to be skipped.  We should
document why that is.

I see a potential problem with the SCRAM channel binding support.
GnuTLS will not support tls-server-endpoint, so we'll need to check what
happens when a client requests that.  (That's not the problem of this
patch, however.)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shubham Barai
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)
Next
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table