Greetings, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 09:38:45PM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 23:08, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > Yes, I would prefer we don't use the LSN. I only mentioned it since > > Ants Aasma mentioned LSN use above. > > > > > > Is there a particular reason why you would prefer not to use LSN? I > > suggested > > it because in my view having a variable tweak is still better than not > > having > > it even if we deem the risks of XTS tweak reuse not important for our use > > case. > > The comment was made under the assumption that requiring wal_log_hints for > > encryption is acceptable. > > Well, using the LSN means we have to store the LSN unencrypted, and that > means we have to carve out a 16-byte block on the page that is not > encrypted.
With XTS this isn't actually the case though, is it..? Part of the point of XTS is that the last block doesn't have to be a full 16 bytes. What you're saying is true for XEX, but that's also why XEX isn't used for FDE in a lot of cases, because disk sectors aren't typically divisible by 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_encryption_theory Assuming that's correct, and I don't see any reason to doubt it, then perhaps it would make sense to have the LSN be unencrypted and include it in the tweak as that would limit the risk from re-use of the same tweak over time. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
