Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2]
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200807071739.58428.peter_e@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2] (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2]
Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2] |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Am Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2008 schrieb KaiGai Kohei: > The following patch set (r926) are updated one toward the latest CVS head, > and contains some fixes in security policy and documentation. OK, I have quickly read through these patches. They look very nice, so I am optimistic we can get through this. First of all, now would be a good time if someone out there really wants to object to this feature in general. It will probably always be a niche feature. But all the code is hidden behind ifdefs or other constructs that a compiler can easily hide away (or we can make it so, at least). Here is a presentation from PGCon on SE-PostgreSQL: http://www.pgcon.org/2008/schedule/events/77.en.html Are there any comments yet from the (Trusted)Solaris people that wanted to evaluate this approach for compatibility with their approach? In general, are we OK with the syntax CONTEXT = '...'? I would rather see something like SECURITY CONTEXT '...'. There are a lot of contexts, after all. This will also add a system column called security_context. I think that is OK. In the pg_dump patch: spelling mistake "tuen on/off" Evil coding style: if (strcmp(SELINUX_SYSATTR_NAME, security_sysattr_name)) -- compare the result with 0 please. The above code appears to assume that security_sysattr_name never changes, but then why do we need a GUC parameter to show it? Might want to change the option name --enable-selinux to something like --security-context. In general, we might want to not name things selinux_* but instead sepostgresql_* or security_* or security_context_*. Or maybe PGACE? On the default policy: Should this really be a contrib module? Considering that it would be a core feature that is not really usable without a policy. Please change all the sepgsql_* things to sepostgresql_*, considering that you are using both already, so we shouldn't have both forms of names. Documentation: Looks good for a start, but we will probably want to write more later.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: