Re: Marking some contrib modules as trusted extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Marking some contrib modules as trusted extensions
Date
Msg-id 23117.1580483599@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Marking some contrib modules as trusted extensions  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Marking some contrib modules as trusted extensions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The bigger picture here is that I don't want to get push-back that
>> we've broken somebody's security posture by marking too many extensions
>> trusted.  So for anything where there's any question about security
>> implications, we should err in the conservative direction of leaving
>> it untrusted.

> I wonder if the same could be said about pgrowlocks.

Good point.  I had figured it was probably OK given that it's
analogous to the pg_locks view (which is unrestricted AFAIR),
and that it already has some restrictions on what you can see.
I'd have no hesitation about dropping it off this list though,
since it's probably not used that much and it could also be seen
as exposing internals.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Use compiler intrinsics for bit ops in hash