Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM
От | Daniel Gustafsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 168426A3-D05C-4B4A-9E64-1DC7AC4DEC67@yesql.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On 18 Nov 2020, at 09:54, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:25:44AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> Technically that is what it does, except for setting the USE_*RANDOM variables >> for non-OpenSSL builds. We could skip that too, which I think is what you're >> proposing, but it seems to me that we'll end up with another set of entangled >> logic in pg_strong_random if we do since there then needs to be precedence in >> checking (one might be on Windows with OpenSSL for example, where OpenSSL > >> Windows API). > > Yes, I am suggesting to just remove both USE_*_RANDOM flags, and use > the following structure instead in pg_strong_random.c for both the > init and main functions: > #ifdef USE_OPENSSL > /* foo */ > #elif WIN32 > /* bar*/ > #else > /* hoge urandom */ > #endif > > And complain in configure.ac if we miss urandom for the fallback case. > > Now, it would not be the first time I suggest something on this thread > that nobody likes :) While it does simplify configure.ac, I'm just not a fan of the strict ordering which is required without the labels even implying it. But that might just be my personal preference. cheers ./daniel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: