On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 05:39:40PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 13:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The timing was not great, but this is fixing a purported defect in an
> > older
> > v16 feature. If the MAINTAIN privilege is actually fine, we're all
> > set for
> > v16. If MAINTAIN does have a material problem that $SUBJECT had
> > fixed, we
> > should either revert MAINTAIN, un-revert $SUBJECT, or fix the problem
> > a
> > different way.
>
> Someone with the MAINTAIN privilege on a table can use search_path
> tricks against the table owner, if the code is susceptible, because
> maintenance code runs with the privileges of the table owner.
>
> I was concerned enough to bring it up on the -security list, and then
> to -hackers followed by a commit (too late). But perhaps that was
> paranoia: the practical risk is probably quite low, because a user with
> the MAINTAIN privilege is likely to be highly trusted.
>
> I'd like to hear from others on the topic about the relative risks of
> shipping with/without the search_path changes.
I find shipping with the search_path change ($SUBJECT) to be lower risk
overall, though both are fairly low-risk. Expect no new errors in non-FULL
VACUUM, which doesn't run the relevant kinds of code. Tables not ready for
the search_path change in ANALYZE already cause errors in Autovacuum ANALYZE
and have since 2018-02 (CVE-2018-1058). Hence, $SUBJECT poses less
compatibility risk than the CVE-2018-1058 fix.
Best argument for shipping without $SUBJECT: we already have REFERENCES and
TRIGGER privilege that tend to let the grantee hijack the table owner's
account. Adding MAINTAIN to the list, while sad, is defensible. I still
prefer to ship with $SUBJECT, not without.
