Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobG1TV4nCeUMYw7DMuaM1b8iVprznvQuYafffLorBprVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a reason to block a directly-logged-in superuser from using a
> mapping.  I asked in the closed list whether the current (released)
> behavior was a security bug, and the answer was no.  And I don't know why
> else to block superusers from doing something other than as a security bug.
> Also it would create a backwards compatibility hazard to revoke the ability
> now.

Well, my thought was that we ought to be consistent about whose
authorization matters.  If we're using the view owner's credentials in
general, then we also (defensibly, anyway) ought to use the view
owner's superuser-ness to decide whether to enforce this restriction.
Using either the view owner's superuser-ness or the session user's
superuser-ness kind of puts you halfway in the middle.  The view
owner's rights are what matters mostly, but your own rights also
matter a little bit around the edges.  That's a little strange.

I don't have violently strong opinions about this - does anyone else
have a view?

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gourav Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] How does postgres store the join predicate for arelation in a given query
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Optimise default partition scanning while adding new partition