Re: Broken lock management in policy.c. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Broken lock management in policy.c.
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQm-a3WamEM_FZYVcu-QpLJe9v2PvKsfxPNM7=qJt4oww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Broken lock management in policy.c.  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Broken lock management in policy.c.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> I would also advise only referencing a single relation within the
> SELECT FOR UPDATE.

To state what may be obvious: We should recommend that SELECT FOR
SHARE appear in the CREATE POLICY USING qual as part of this
workaround (not SELECT FOR UPDATE), because there is no need for
anything stronger than that. We only need to prevent the admin
updating a referenced-in-using-qual tuple in a way that allows a
malicious user to exploit an inconsistency in tuple visibility during
EPQ rechec. (Using SELECT FOR KEY SHARE would not reliably workaround
the underlying issue, though.)

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.5 BLOCKER: regrole and regnamespace and quotes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.5 BLOCKER: regrole and regnamespace and quotes