| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Backpatch-through: 13
|
|
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
|
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
This set of diffs is a bit larger than typical. We've updated to
pg_bsd_indent 2.1.2, which properly indents variable declarations that
have multi-line initialization expressions (the continuation lines are
now indented one tab stop). We've also updated to perltidy version
20230309 and changed some of its settings, which reduces its desire to
add whitespace to lines to make assignments etc. line up. Going
forward, that should make for fewer random-seeming changes to existing
code.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230428092545.qfb3y5wcu4cm75ur@alvherre.pgsql
|
|
Backpatch-through: 11
|
|
This applies the new APIs to the code.
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/7c0232ef-7b44-68db-599d-b327d0640a77@enterprisedb.com
|
|
|
|
Per applicable standards, free() with a null pointer is a no-op.
Systems that don't observe that are ancient and no longer relevant.
Some PostgreSQL code already required this behavior, so this change
does not introduce any new requirements, just makes the code more
consistent.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/dac5d2d0-98f5-94d9-8e69-46da2413593d%40enterprisedb.com
|
|
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
I manually fixed a couple of comments that pgindent uglified.
|
|
The current implementation supports exactly one IP address in a server
certificate's Common Name, which is brittle (the strings must match
exactly). This patch adds support for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in a
server's Subject Alternative Names.
Per discussion on-list:
- If the client's expected host is an IP address, we allow fallback to
the Subject Common Name if an iPAddress SAN is not present, even if
a dNSName is present. This matches the behavior of NSS, in
violation of the relevant RFCs.
- We also, counter-intuitively, match IP addresses embedded in dNSName
SANs. From inspection this appears to have been the behavior since
the SAN matching feature was introduced in acd08d76.
- Unlike NSS, we don't map IPv4 to IPv6 addresses, or vice-versa.
Author: Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>
Co-authored-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9f5f20974cd3a4091a788cf7f00ab663d5fcdffe.camel@vmware.com
|
|
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
Previously, we had an undisciplined mish-mash of printfPQExpBuffer and
appendPQExpBuffer calls to report errors within libpq. This commit
establishes a uniform rule that appendPQExpBuffer[Str] should be used.
conn->errorMessage is reset only at the start of an application request,
and then accumulates messages till we're done. We can remove no less
than three different ad-hoc mechanisms that were used to get the effect
of concatenation of error messages within a sequence of operations.
Although this makes things quite a bit cleaner conceptually, the main
reason to do it is to make the world safer for the multiple-target-host
feature that was added awhile back. Previously, there were many cases
in which an error occurring during an individual host connection attempt
would wipe out the record of what had happened during previous attempts.
(The reporting is still inadequate, in that it can be hard to tell which
host got the failure, but that seems like a matter for a separate commit.)
Currently, lo_import and lo_export contain exceptions to the "never
use printfPQExpBuffer" rule. If we changed them, we'd risk reporting
an incidental lo_close failure before the actual read or write
failure, which would be confusing, not least because lo_close happened
after the main failure. We could improve this by inventing an
internal version of lo_close that doesn't reset the errorMessage; but
we'd also need a version of PQfn() that does that, and it didn't quite
seem worth the trouble for now.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/BN6PR05MB3492948E4FD76C156E747E8BC9160@BN6PR05MB3492.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
|
|
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
|
Commit 1944cdc98 changed PQhost() to return the hostaddr value when that
is specified and host isn't. This is a good idea in general, but
fe-auth.c and related files contain PQhost() calls for which it isn't.
Specifically, when we compare SSL certificates or other server identity
information to the host field, we do not want to use hostaddr instead;
that's not what's documented, that's not what happened pre-v10, and
it doesn't seem like a good idea.
Instead, we can just look at connhost[].host directly. This does what
we want in v10 and up; in particular, if neither host nor hostaddr
were given, the host field will be replaced with the default host name.
That seems useful, and it's likely the reason that these places were
coded to call PQhost() originally (since pre-v10, the stored field was
not replaced with the default).
Back-patch to v10, as 1944cdc98 (just) was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23287.1533227021@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Separate the parts specific to the SSL library from the general logic.
The previous code structure was
open_client_SSL()
calls verify_peer_name_matches_certificate()
calls verify_peer_name_matches_certificate_name()
calls wildcard_certificate_match()
and was completely in fe-secure-openssl.c. The new structure is
open_client_SSL() [openssl]
calls pq_verify_peer_name_matches_certificate() [generic]
calls pgtls_verify_peer_name_matches_certificate_guts() [openssl]
calls openssl_verify_peer_name_matches_certificate_name() [openssl]
calls pq_verify_peer_name_matches_certificate_name() [generic]
calls wildcard_certificate_match() [generic]
Move the generic functions into a new file fe-secure-common.c, so the
calls generally go fe-connect.c -> fe-secure.c -> fe-secure-${impl}.c ->
fe-secure-common.c, although there is a bit of back-and-forth between
the last two.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
|
