Re: CREATEROLE users vs. role properties - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Subject | Re: CREATEROLE users vs. role properties |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20230118231749.GA3790025@nathanxps13 Whole thread Raw |
In response to | CREATEROLE users vs. role properties (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: CREATEROLE users vs. role properties
Re: CREATEROLE users vs. role properties |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:15:33PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:29 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> 1. It's still possible for a CREATEROLE user to hand out role >> attributes that they don't possess. The new prohibitions in >> cf5eb37c5ee0cc54c80d95c1695d7fca1f7c68cb prevent a CREATEROLE user >> from handing out membership in a role on which they lack sufficient >> permissions, but they don't prevent a CREATEROLE user who lacks >> CREATEDB from creating a new user who does have CREATEDB. I think we >> should subject the CREATEDB, REPLICATION, and BYPASSRLS attributes to >> the same rule that we now use for role memberships: you've got to have >> the property in order to give it to someone else. In the case of >> CREATEDB, this would tighten the current rules, which allow you to >> give out CREATEDB without having it. In the case of REPLICATION and >> BYPASSRLS, this would liberalize the current rules: right now, a >> CREATEROLE user cannot give REPLICATION or BYPASSRLS to another user >> even if they possess those attributes. >> >> This proposal doesn't address the CREATEROLE or CONNECTION LIMIT >> properties. It seems possible to me that someone might want to set up >> a CREATEROLE user who can't make more such users, and this proposal >> doesn't manufacture any way of doing that. It also doesn't let you >> constraint the ability of a CREATEROLE user to set a CONNECTION LIMIT >> for some other user. I think that's OK. It might be nice to have ways >> of imposing such restrictions at some point in the future, but it is >> not very obvious what to do about such cases and, importantly, I don't >> think there's any security impact from failing to address those cases. >> If a CREATEROLE user without CREATEDB can create a new role that does >> have CREATEDB, that's a privilege escalation. If they can hand out >> CREATEROLE, that isn't: they already have it. > > Here is a patch implementing the above proposal. Since this is fairly > closely related to already-committed work, I would like to get this > into v16. That way, all the changes to how CREATEROLE works will go > into a single release, which seems less confusing for users. It is > also fairly clear to me that this is an improvement over the status > quo. Sometimes things that seem clear to me turn out to be false, so > if this change seems like a problem to you, please let me know. This seems like a clear improvement to me. However, as the attribute system becomes more sophisticated, I think we ought to improve the error messages in user.c. IMHO messages like "permission denied" could be greatly improved with some added context. For example, if I want to change a role's password, I need both CREATEROLE and ADMIN OPTION on the role, but the error message only mentions CREATEROLE. postgres=# create role createrole with createrole; CREATE ROLE postgres=# create role otherrole; CREATE ROLE postgres=# set role createrole; SET postgres=> alter role otherrole password 'test'; ERROR: must have CREATEROLE privilege to change another user's password Similarly, if I want to allow a role to grant REPLICATION to another role, I have to give it CREATEROLE, REPLICATION, and membership with ADMIN OPTION. If the role is missing CREATEROLE or membership with ADMIN OPTION, it'll only ever see a "permission denied" error. postgres=# create role createrole with createrole; CREATE ROLE postgres=# create role otherrole; CREATE ROLE postgres=# set role createrole; SET postgres=> alter role otherrole with replication; ERROR: permission denied postgres=> reset role; RESET postgres=# alter role createrole with replication; ALTER ROLE postgres=# set role createrole; SET postgres=> alter role otherrole with replication; ERROR: permission denied postgres=> reset role; RESET postgres=# grant otherrole to createrole; GRANT ROLE postgres=# set role createrole; SET postgres=> alter role otherrole with replication; ERROR: permission denied postgres=> reset role; RESET postgres=# grant otherrole to createrole with admin option; GRANT ROLE postgres=# set role createrole; SET postgres=> alter role otherrole with replication; ALTER ROLE If it has both CREATEROLE and membership with ADMIN OPTION (but not REPLICATION), it'll see a more helpful message. postgres=# create role createrole with createrole; CREATE ROLE postgres=# create role otherrole; CREATE ROLE postgres=# grant otherrole to createrole with admin option; GRANT ROLE postgres=# set role createrole; SET postgres=> alter role otherrole with replication; ERROR: must have replication privilege to change replication attribute This probably shouldn't block your patch, but I think it's worth doing in v16 since there are other changes in this area. I'm happy to help. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
pgsql-hackers by date: