Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
meson: Fix install-quiet after clean
- a9ffb35274fb 18.0 landed
- 4ae03be54734 19 (unreleased) landed
-
oauth: Run Autoconf tests with correct compiler flags
- 3d23f68c5529 18.0 landed
- 990571a08b66 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Link libpq with libdl if the platform needs that.
- 4df477153a6b 19 (unreleased) landed
- 7bd752c1fb8e 18.0 landed
-
Doc: correct spelling of meson switch.
- 3faac9d14063 16.9 landed
- 766d2e673342 17.5 landed
- ac557793d478 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Correct SSL dependency for libpq-oauth.a
- 3db68212a393 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix Autoconf build on macOS
- 4ea1254f35b2 18.0 cited
-
oauth: Move the builtin flow into a separate module
- b0635bfda053 18.0 landed
-
Remove a stray "pgrminclude" annotation
- 764d501d24ba 18.0 cited
-
oauth: Simplify copy of PGoauthBearerRequest
- 1cf4c56480f8 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Improve validator docs on interruptibility
- 873c0fd67872 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Disallow synchronous DNS in libcurl
- d7e40845f923 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix postcondition for set_timer on macOS
- 434dbf6907ec 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Use IPv4-only issuer in oauth_validator tests
- 8d9d5843b55f 18.0 landed
-
Work around OAuth/EVFILT_TIMER quirk on NetBSD.
- c301a0a74a8a 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix incorrect const markers in struct
- 03366b61dfe5 18.0 landed
-
Add missing entry to oauth_validator test .gitignore
- 2c53dec7f440 18.0 landed
-
cirrus: Temporarily fix libcurl link error
- 9d9a71002a1c 18.0 landed
-
Add support for OAUTHBEARER SASL mechanism
- b3f0be788afc 18.0 landed
-
libpq: Handle asynchronous actions during SASL
- a99a32e43ed7 18.0 landed
-
require_auth: prepare for multiple SASL mechanisms
- f8d8581ed882 18.0 landed
-
Move PG_MAX_AUTH_TOKEN_LENGTH to libpq/auth.h
- e21d6f297158 18.0 landed
-
Make SASL max message length configurable
- 6d16f9debae0 18.0 landed
-
jsonapi: fully initialize dummy lexer
- 41b023946dfd 18.0 landed
-
common/jsonapi: support libpq as a client
- 0785d1b8b2fa 18.0 landed
-
Remove fe_memutils from libpgcommon_shlib
- f1976df5eaf2 18.0 landed
-
Revert ECPG's use of pnstrdup()
- f0096ef13be2 13.17 landed
- 3557185538fe 14.14 landed
- 2de129b356bf 15.9 landed
- ee2997c678d8 16.5 landed
- e9e05c655069 17.0 landed
- 5388216f6adc 18.0 landed
-
Explicitly require password for SCRAM exchange
- adcdb2c8dda4 17.0 landed
-
Refactor SASL exchange to return tri-state status
- 24178e235ea5 17.0 landed
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 4:05 AM Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote: > > > And regardless, the library appears to be loaded by every backend during > > > authentication. Why isn't it loaded by postmaster like libraries listed in > > > shared_preload_libraries? fork() would then ensure that the backends do have > > > the library in their address space. > > > > It _can_ be, if you want -- there's nothing that I know of preventing > > the validator from also being preloaded with its own _PG_init(), is > > there? But I don't think it's a good idea to force that, for the same > > reason we want to allow SIGHUP. > > Loading the library by postmaster does not prevent the backends from reloading > it on SIGHUP later. I was simply concerned about performance. (I proposed > loading the library at another stage of backend initialization rather than > adding _PG_init() to it.) Okay. I think this is going to be one of the slower authentication methods by necessity: the builtin flow in libpq requires a human in the loop, and an online validator is going to be making several HTTP calls from the backend. So if it turns out later that we need to optimize the backend logic, I'd prefer to have a case study in hand; otherwise I think we're likely to optimize the wrong things. > Easiness of reading is the only "question" here :-) It's might not always be > obvious why a variable should have some particular value. In general, the > Assert() statements are almost always preceded with a comment in the PG > source. Oh, an assertion label! I can absolutely add one; I originally thought you were proposing a label for the case itself. > > > Or, doesn't the FE_OAUTH_INIT branch of the switch statement actually fit > > > better into oauth_init()? > > > > oauth_init() is the mechanism initialization for the SASL framework > > itself, which is shared with SCRAM. In the current architecture, the > > init callback doesn't take the initial client response into > > consideration at all. > > Sure. The FE_OAUTH_INIT branch in oauth_exchange() (FE) also does not generate > the initial client response. It might, if it ends up falling through to FE_OAUTH_REQUESTING_TOKEN. There are two paths that can do that: the case where we have no discovery URI, and the case where a custom user flow returns a token synchronously (it was probably cached). > Anyway, are you sure that pg_SASL_continue() can also receive the SASL_ASYNC > value from oauth_exchange()? My understanding is that pg_SASL_init() receives > it if there is no token, but after that, oauth_exchange() is not called util > the token is available, and thus it should not return SASL_ASYNC anymore. Correct -- the only way for the current implementation of the OAUTHBEARER mechanism to return SASL_ASYNC is during the very first call. That's not an assumption I want to put into the higher levels, though; I think Michael will be unhappy with me if I introduce additional SASL coupling after the decoupling work that's been done over the last few releases. :D Thanks again, --Jacob