Re: Ownership/protection (was Re: [HACKERS] Portability) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Ownership/protection (was Re: [HACKERS] Portability)
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911302029570.13278-100000@Vessla.DoCS.UU.SE
Whole thread Raw
In response to Ownership/protection (was Re: [HACKERS] Portability)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> The difficulty with encouraging people to su to root for install is that
> it's so easy to make the files root-owned and thereby create a security
> problem.  Perhaps the right compromise is to add a --owner switch to
> "make install", and to have it refuse to install if the (given or
> defaulted) ownership is "root" ?

See Vince's email about the configure switch to be used in install. That
is what I was shooting for. I am not sure to what extend initdb should use
those settings (recall: autoconf is not for configuring run time stuff)
but if you *insist* on running initdb as root (too lazy to su, forgot to,
etc.) there should be an option, as there is now.

> offhand I can't think of any reason that any postgres-owned processes
> need to be able to write in the bin, lib, or include hierarchies.  Can
> anyone else think of one?

They better not write there. That would certainly be a major bug.

> BTW, do we have a check in the postmaster to refuse to start if its euid
> is root?  Shouldn't we?

There is a check and it refuses to start.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Brian E Gallew
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: tab completion in psql
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table