db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mike Matrigali (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (DERBY-1156) allow the encrypting of an existing unencrypted db and allow the re-encrypting of an existing encrypted db
Date Thu, 11 May 2006 18:17:18 GMT
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1156?page=all ]

Mike Matrigali updated DERBY-1156:

I have reviewed this patch and run a full set of tests on windows XP / sun jdk1.4.2 which
passed.  I think this patch should be committed as is.   It is a good incremental checkin
for this feature.  It provides a set of tools for the rest of the project, and gets the code
to the point that it can encrypt an existing unencrypted db.  Future checkins should address
a couple of things:
1) obviously more testing.  Some quick notes, the current tests may want to show that accessing
the newly encrypted db with a bad password does not work - just to insure all the url;s are
not just being totally ignored.  Also want to test abort - probably need a testing codepoint
to cause the failure at the right time.
2) fix up the comments, there are some typo's .
3) usual nit - some greater than 80 char lines.

I would have committed this change now, but svn still is not back.

> allow the encrypting of an existing unencrypted db and allow the re-encrypting of an
existing encrypted db
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          Key: DERBY-1156
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1156
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Improvement

>   Components: Store
>     Versions:
>     Reporter: Mike Matrigali
>     Assignee: Suresh Thalamati
>     Priority: Minor
>      Fix For:
>  Attachments: encryptspec.html, reencrypt_1.diff
> encrypted database to be re-encrypted with a new password.
> Here are some ideas for an initial implementation.
> The easiest way to do this is to make sure we have exclusive access to the
> data and that no log is required in the new copy of the db.  I want to avoid
> the log as it also is encrypted.  Here is my VERY high level plan:
> 1) Force exclusive access by putting all the work in the low level store,
>    offline boot method.  We will do redo recovery as usual, but at the end
>    there will be an entry point to do the copy/encrypt operation.
> copy/encrypt process:
> 0) The request to encrypt/re-encrypt the db will be handled with a new set
>    of url flags passed into store at boot time.  The new flags will provide
>    the same inputs as the current encrypt flags.  So at high level the
>    request will be "connect db old_encrypt_url_flags; new_encrypt_url_flags".
>    TODO - provide exact new flag syntax.
> 1) Open a transaction do all logged work to do the encryption.  All logging
>    will be done with existing encryption.
> 2) Copy and encrypt every db file in the database.  The target files will
>    be in the data directory.  There will be a new suffix to track the new
>    files, similar to the current process used for handling drop table in
>    a transaction consistent manner without logging the entire table to the log.
>    Entire encrypted destination file is guaranteed synced to disk before
>    transaction commits.  I don't think this part needs to be logged.
>    Files will be read from the cache using existing mechanism and written
>    directly into new encrypted files (new encrypted data does not end up in
>    the cache).
> 3) Switch encrypted files for old files.  Do this under a new log operation
>    so the process can be correctly rolled back if the encrypt db operation
>    transaction fails.  Rollback will do file at a time switches, no reading
>    of encrypted data is necessary.
> 4) log a "change encryption of db" log record, but do not update
>    system.properties with the change.
> 5) commit transaction.
> 6) update system.properties and sync changes.
> 7) TODO - need someway to handle crash between steps 5 and 6.
> 6) checkpoint all data, at this point guaranteed that there is no outstanding
>    transaction, so after checkpoint is done there is no need for the log.
> o there probably should be something that catches a request to encrypt to
>   whatever db was already encrypted with.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message