Re: Possible major bug in PlPython (plus some other ideas) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bradley McLean |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Possible major bug in PlPython (plus some other ideas) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20011112091036.A31981@bradm.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Possible major bug in PlPython (plus some other ideas) (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
I'm going to do this today (Kevin, I'm not stepping on your toes, am I?) I have some other problems with the module to be addressed (there are about a million, or at least a dozen ways to get it to return Null pointers to the backend, crash the backend, and cause a general shared mem corruption message from the postmaster). -Brad * Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) [011112 00:41]: > > I would like to have a patch for this into 7.2 because it is a security > problem. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Kevin Jacobs <jacobs@penguin.theopalgroup.com> writes: > > > I have noticed a possibly major issues in Plpython that may need to be > > > addressed before 7.2 is released: > > > > > 1) If Plpython is installed as a trusted language, and from what little I > > > can glean from the documentation, it should not have any filesystem access. > > > However, the default behavior of the restricted execution environment > > > being used allows read-only filesystem access. > > > > I agree, this is not good. If it's easy to patch, please submit a > > patch. > > > > What worries me is not so much this particular hole, which is easily > > plugged now that we know about it, as that it suggests that Python's > > idea of a restricted environment is considerably less restricted than > > we would like. Perhaps there are other facilities that need to be > > turned off as well? > > > > The alternative we could consider is to mark plpython as untrusted for > > 7.2, until someone has time for a more complete review of possible > > security problems. > > > > > I have some other suggestions that may not be appropriate for the 7.2 > > > release, but think should be addressed before too long: > > > > This would all be good stuff to address in 7.3 or further in the future. > > As far as I'm concerned, all the PL languages except plpgsql are barely > > out of the "proof of concept" stage; they all need a lot of work from > > interested people to bring them to the "industrial strength" stage. > > If you want to be one of those people, step right up! > > > > > 6) [Very low priority] Its not insane to consider a Plpython procedure > > > that spawns off a Python thread to do background processing tasks. > > > This is obviously something that will only be possible in an untrusted > > > version of the interpreter. Also, if the SPI interface is thread-safe, > > > then it may be useful to release the Python interpreter lock around > > > some of the SPI calls. > > > > SPI is not thread-safe; in fact no part of the backend is thread-safe > > or designed for multithreading at all. This one I'd view with great > > wariness. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
pgsql-hackers by date: