Re: security label support, part.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: security label support, part.2
Date
Msg-id AANLkTimMzCagPgVZgve7yD1UK_CapSiXjn=pBFbYiGhQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: security label support, part.2  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: security label support, part.2
Re: security label support, part.2
Re: security label support, part.2
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> No..  and I'm not sure we ever would.  What we *have* done is removed
> all permissions checking on child tables when a parent is being
> queried..

Yeah.  I'm not totally sure that is sensible for a MAC environment.
Heck, it's arguably incorrect (though perhaps quite convenient) in a
DAC environment.  Anyway, I wonder if it would be sensible to try to
adjust the structure of the DAC permissions checks so enhanced
security providers can make their own decision about how to handle
this case.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Progress indication prototype
Next
From: "Erik Rijkers"
Date:
Subject: Re: Progress indication prototype