| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT (was Re: Not quite a security hole: CREATE LANGUAGE for non-superusers) |
| Date: | 2012-06-12 21:13:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1339535505-sup-5308@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mar jun 12 17:08:09 -0400 2012:
> >Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > If we had an independent way to have the function run as a
> > specific user, where that user DIDN'T own the function, I think
> > Kevin's use case would be satisfied.
>
> I agree. I'm not sure quite what that would look like, but maybe
> SECURITY ROLE <rolename> or some such could be an alternative to
> SECURITY INVOKER and SECURITY DEFINER. (I haven't looked to see
> what the standard has here.)
We talked briefly about this a year ago:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2011_Developer_Meeting#Authorization_Issues
(Not quite the same thing, but it's closely related).
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-06-12 21:14:34 | Re: Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT (was Re: Not quite a security hole: CREATE LANGUAGE for non-superusers) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-12 21:12:23 | Re: Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT (was Re: Not quite a security hole: CREATE LANGUAGE for non-superusers) |