Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Date
Msg-id 15800.993482711@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> Without making the "definer" need an additional grant for creating such 
> a function, it would be like giving him all the privs he has 
> "with grant option".

Hmm ... interesting analogy, but does it hold water?  The GRANT OPTION
stuff implies the right to pass on your privileges to someone else
*permanently*.  A setuid function only lets someone else do the same
things you can do at the time it is called.  There's nothing there that
couldn't be done by having the one user ask the other to do something
using an outside-the-database communication channel.  So I really don't
see a security issue.

I also don't see any privilege of this type in SQL92 (which does have
the concept of setuid functions, in the form of modules).
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Next
From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Date:
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions