The following checks are added, to make the SASL infrastructure more
aware of defects when implementing new mechanisms:
- Detect that no output is generated by a mechanism if an exchange fails
in the backend, failing if there is a message waiting to be sent.
- Handle zero-length messages in the frontend. The backend handles that
already, and SCRAM would complain if sending empty messages as this is
not authorized for this mechanism, but other mechanisms may want this
capability (the SASL specification allows that).
- Make sure that a mechanism generates a message in the middle of the
exchange in the frontend.
SCRAM, as implemented, respects all these requirements already, and the
recent refactoring of SASL done in 9fd8557 helps in documenting that in
a cleaner way.
Analyzed-by: Jacob Champion
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Jacob Champion
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3d2a6f5d50e741117d6baf83eb67ebf1a8a35a11.camel@vmware.com
The code of SCRAM and SASL have been tightly linked together since SCRAM
exists in the core code, making hard to apprehend the addition of new
SASL mechanisms, but these are by design different facilities, with
SCRAM being an option for SASL. This refactors the code related to both
so as the backend and the frontend use a set of callbacks for SASL
mechanisms, documenting while on it what is expected by anybody adding a
new SASL mechanism.
The separation between both layers is neat, using two sets of callbacks
for the frontend and the backend to mark the frontier between both
facilities. The shape of the callbacks is now directly inspired from
the routines used by SCRAM, so the code change is straight-forward, and
the SASL code is moved into its own set of files. These will likely
change depending on how and if new SASL mechanisms get added in the
future.
Author: Jacob Champion
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3d2a6f5d50e741117d6baf83eb67ebf1a8a35a11.camel@vmware.com
Bruce Momjian
Michael Paquier