Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)
Date
Msg-id 5305.1236619530@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)  (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>)
Responses Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes:
> Yes, the purpose of sepgsqlCheckProcedureInstall() is to prevent users
> to invoke functions installed by other malicious/untrusted one, typically
> known as trojan-horse.
> ...
> We should not assume only C-functions can be installed on pg_conversion
> (and other internal stuff), because a superuser can update system catalog
> by hand.
> ...
> SE-PostgreSQL intends to acquire them and apply access control policy
> in this case also.

I don't think that anyone except KaiGai-san has bought into the concept
that sepostgres should get to override superuser capabilities, much less
that it should be trying to control semantics at this kind of level of
detail.

I've been convinced for awhile that the sepostgres project is going
off the rails, and these last couple of exchanges just confirm the fear.
This is absolutely *not* the kind of thing that we should be designing
four months after feature freeze.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: One less footgun: deprecating pg_dump -d
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: One less footgun: deprecating pg_dump -d