On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 13:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> The timing was not great, but this is fixing a purported defect in an
> older
> v16 feature. If the MAINTAIN privilege is actually fine, we're all
> set for
> v16. If MAINTAIN does have a material problem that $SUBJECT had
> fixed, we
> should either revert MAINTAIN, un-revert $SUBJECT, or fix the problem
> a
> different way.
Someone with the MAINTAIN privilege on a table can use search_path
tricks against the table owner, if the code is susceptible, because
maintenance code runs with the privileges of the table owner.
I was concerned enough to bring it up on the -security list, and then
to -hackers followed by a commit (too late). But perhaps that was
paranoia: the practical risk is probably quite low, because a user with
the MAINTAIN privilege is likely to be highly trusted.
I'd like to hear from others on the topic about the relative risks of
shipping with/without the search_path changes.
I don't think a full revert of the MAINTAIN privilege is the right
thing -- the predefined role is very valuable and many other predefined
roles are much more dangerous than pg_maintain is.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
