2009/12/11 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
> It tried to provide a set of comprehensive entry points to replace existing
> PG checks at once.
> However, the SE-PgSQL/Lite patch covers accesses on only database, schema,
> tables and columns. Is it necessary to be comprehensive from the beginning?
> It might be too aggressive changes at once.
>
> Frankly, I hesitate to salvage the patch once rejected, as is.
>
> If we implement a set of security hooks, It seems to me the following approach
> is reasonable:
>
> * It does not touch the existing PG default checks.
> The purpose of security hooks are to host "enhanced" security features.
>
> * It does not deploy hooks on which no security provider is now proposed.
> It is important to reduce unnecessary changeset.
I think that we should try to move the PG default checks inside the
hook functions. If we can't do that cleanly, it's a good sign that
the hook functions are not correctly placed to enforce arbitrary
security policy. Furthermore, it defeats what I think would be a good
side goal here, which is to better modularize the existing code.
What I would suggest is that you develop a version of that patch that
is stripped down to apply to only a single object type (databases?
tables and columns - these might have to be together??) and which
addresses Tom's criticisms from the last time around, and post that
(on a new thread) for discussion. That will be much easier to review
(and I will personally commit to reviewing it) but should allow us to
flush out some of the design issues. If we can get agreement on that
as a concept patch, we can move on to talking about which object types
should be included in a committable version of that patch.
...Robert
