[MDEV-17229] Encryption threads ignore innodb_default_encryption_key_id Created: 2018-09-18  Updated: 2023-04-27

Status: Stalled
Project: MariaDB Server
Component/s: Encryption, Storage Engine - InnoDB
Affects Version/s: 10.1, 10.3.9, 10.2
Fix Version/s: 10.4

Type: Bug Priority: Major
Reporter: Robert Golebiowski Assignee: Thirunarayanan Balathandayuthapani
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None


 Description   

When tablespace is to be encrypted by encryption threads (encryption unencrypted => encrypted) the tablespace will be always encrypted with key id 0. Encryption threads ignore the value of innodb_default_encryption_key_id. innodb_default_encryption_key_id should be used when encrypting unencrypted=>encrypted with encryption thread.



 Comments   
Comment by Jan Lindström (Inactive) [ 2018-11-07 ]

https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/494dfb14f29faa066926f87545a173ad676e669b

Comment by Marko Mäkelä [ 2018-11-07 ]

I believe that it is completely unacceptable for a SET SESSION statement to cause an assignment of a separate global variable that controls some background threads.

Could the global variable be accessed by THDVAR(NULL, default_encryption_key_id)? SET GLOBAL also ought to require more privileges than SET [SESSION].

Before submitting a revised patch, please write clear user documentation or high-level specification of how all this is supposed to work. I cannot review code changes without having a solid specification first.

Comment by Jan Lindström (Inactive) [ 2018-11-12 ]

https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/9c46adbb7e093029c56dddd5dbbef407db4e8160

Comment by Marko Mäkelä [ 2018-11-12 ]

This is better, I do not think it is OK to issue warnings for ignoring parameters that were not specified by the user. Please revise and resubmit for review.

Comment by Jan Lindström (Inactive) [ 2018-11-14 ]

https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/2eba5d6eabdd3f82bcc9859bb9333e1909ec0852

Comment by Marko Mäkelä [ 2019-01-10 ]

Sorry for taking so long; I had not noticed the state change.
This looks OK after addressing all my review comments.

Generated at Thu Feb 08 08:34:53 UTC 2024 using Jira 8.20.16#820016-sha1:9d11dbea5f4be3d4cc21f03a88dd11d8c8687422.