Re: plperl Safe restrictions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: plperl Safe restrictions
Date
Msg-id 10694.1097861227@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plperl Safe restrictions  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: plperl Safe restrictions
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> The question in my mind is "What are we protecting against?" ISTM it is 
> the use of the pl as a vector to attack the machine and postgres. Does a 
> segfault come into that category? After all, isn't it one of postgres's 
> strengths that we can survive individual backends crashing?

Yeah, but a repeatable segfault certainly is an adequate tool for a
denial-of-service attack, since it takes out everyone else's sessions
along with your own.  A possibly larger objection is how sure can you be
that the effects will *only* be a segfault, and not say the ability to
execute some user-injected machine code.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yann Michel
Date:
Subject: Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl Safe restrictions