Re: Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8kdata.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-04-13T11:24:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04/13/2017 05:54 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa > <aht@8kdata.com> wrote: >> By looking at the them, and unless I'm missing something, I don't see >> how the extra information for the future implementation of channel binding >> would be added (without changing the protocol). Relevant part is: >> >> The message body is a list of SASL authentication mechanisms, in the >> server's order of preference. A zero byte is required as terminator after >> the last authentication mechanism name. For each mechanism, there is the >> following: >> <variablelist> >> <varlistentry> >> <term> >> String >> </term> >> <listitem> >> <para> >> Name of a SASL authentication mechanism. >> </para> >> </listitem> >> </varlistentry> >> </variablelist> >> How do you plan to implement it, in future versions, without modifying >> the AuthenticationSASL message? Or is it OK to add new fields to a message >> in future PostgreSQL versions, without considering that a protocol change? > > I don't quite understand the complain here, it is perfectly fine to > add as many null-terminated names as you want with this model. The > patches would make the server just send one mechanism name now, but > nothing prevents the addition of more. Right, when we get channel binding, the server will list "SCRAM-SHA-256" and "SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS" as the list of mechanisms. And if we get channel binding using something else than tls-unique, then those will be added as extra mechanisms, too, e.g. "SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS tls-awesome". I don't think that needs to be discussed in the docs yet, because a client will simply ignore any mechanisms it doesn't understand. Although perhaps it would be good to mention explicitly that even though SASL defines that mechanism names have a particular format - all ASCII upper-case, max 20 chars - the client should accept and ignore arbitrary strings, not limited to that format. - Heikki
Commits
-
Improve the SASL authentication protocol.
- 4f3b87ab780b 10.0 landed
-
Refactor libpq authentication request processing.
- 61bf96cab063 10.0 landed
-
Minor cleanup of backend SCRAM code.
- 00707fa58275 10.0 landed