Re: psql+openssl+uniware7 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Olivier PRENANT
Subject Re: psql+openssl+uniware7
Date
Msg-id Pine.UW2.4.21.0106231838190.21262-100000@server.pyrenet.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql+openssl+uniware7  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: psql+openssl+uniware7  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
I was afraid you would say that.

As a user of postgresql for many years, one thing I love is that it's
multi-platform.

Unfortunatly, not all platforms have /dev/urandom.

here is part of openssl doc (RAND_add.pod)

OpenSSL makes sure that the PRNG state is unique for each thread. On
systems that provide C</dev/urandom>, the randomness device is used
to seed the PRNG transparently. However, on all other systems, the
application is responsible for seeding the PRNG by calling RAND_add(),
L<RAND_egd(3)|RAND_egd(3)>
or L<RAND_load_file(3)|RAND_load_file(3)>.

It clearly states that THE APPLICATION (psql) is responsible for seedinf
the PRNG. ISTM, saying it's a bug of openssl when it's IN THE DOC seems a
bit "unnice".

Even openssh (widely used) seeds PRNG itself.

I'm not trying to start a war, I love Postgresql too much for that, but
just say, I'll TRY to come up with a patch.

Regards,


On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Olivier PRENANT <ohp@pyrenet.fr> writes:
> >> Shouldn't this be handled by the OpenSSL configuration?
> 
> > Not yet, opensl-0.9.7 will detect egd. Until then, client has to seed
> > prng.
> 
> I think we shouldn't patch our code to work around an openssl bug that
> will go away soon anyway.
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 

-- 
Olivier PRENANT             Tel:    +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work)
Quartier d'Harraud Turrou           +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax)
31190 AUTERIVE                      +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM)
FRANCE                      Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Next
From: "Hiroshi Inoue"
Date:
Subject: RE: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM?