On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 6:24 AM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > > On 25 Oct 2024, at 20:22, Jacob Champion <jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> > > wrote: > > > I have combed almost all of Daniel's feedback backwards into the main > > patch (just the new bzero code remains, with the open question > > upthread), > > Re-reading I can't see a vector there, I guess I am just scarred from what > seemed to be harmless leaks in auth codepaths and treat every bit as > potentially important. Feel free to drop from the patchset for now.
Okay. For authn_id specifically, which isn't secret and doesn't have any power unless it's somehow copied into the ClientConnectionInfo, I'm not sure that the bzero() gives us much. But I do see value in clearing out, say, the Bearer token once we're finished with it. Also in this validate() code path, I'm taking a look at the added memory management with the pfree(): 1. Should we add any more ceremony to the returned struct, to try to ensure that the ABI matches? Or is it good enough to declare that modules need to be compiled against a specific server version? 2. Should we split off a separate memory context to contain allocations made by the validator? > Looking more at the patchset I think we need to apply conditional compilation > of the backend for oauth like how we do with other opt-in schemes in configure > and meson. The attached .txt has a diff for making --with-oauth a requirement > for compiling support into backend libpq. Do we get the flexibility we need with that approach? With other opt-in schemes, the backend and the frontend both need some sort of third-party dependency, but that's not true for OAuth. I could see some people wanting to support an offline token validator on the server side but not wanting to build the HTTP dependency into their clients. I was considering going in the opposite direction: With the client hooks, a user could plug in their own implementation without ever having to touch the built-in flow, and I'm wondering if --with-oauth should really just be --with-builtin-oauth or similar. Then if the server sends OAUTHBEARER, the client only complains if it doesn't have a flow available to use, rather than checking USE_OAUTH. This kind of ties into the other big open question of "what do we do about users that don't want the additional overhead of something they're not using?" --Jacob
