From: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Williamson <gwilliamson39(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
Date: | 2009-08-04 03:34:52 |
Message-ID: | 4A77AC5C.9060708@ak.jp.nec.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> KaiGai,
>
> * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
>> I began to describe the list of abstraction layer functions (but not completed yet):
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL_Abstraction
>
> I'm not really a huge fan of 'security_' as a prefix for these
> functions, but I don't have a better suggestion right now.
If so, 'pgsec_' (PostGresql SECutiry) instead?
> The initial abstraction patch shouldn't include the security context
> pieces. I realize that will be needed eventually, but the patch to do
> the abstraction and to formally move permissions checking to aclchk.c
> needs to stand alone. I'm also not sure that the API of having the
> security context be returned as a Datum makes sense..
OK, I'll add pieces corresponding to the security context on the second
patch (SE-PostgreSQL patch).
> Doesn't security_table_permissions() need to know if the query is an
> UPDATE or an INSERT?
Either ACL_UPDATE or ACL_INSERT should be set on the required_perms.
Both of them are never set in same time.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tao Ma | 2009-08-04 03:34:54 | Re: question about the _SPI_save_plan() and plan cache |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-04 03:24:31 | Re: pg_proc.probin should become text? |