Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
От | Takahiro Itagaki |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20091211141731.8C8A.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: > >> <structname>pg_largeobject</structname> should not be readable by the > >> public, since the catalog contains data in large objects of all users. > > > > This is going to be a problem, because it will break applications that > > expect to be able to read pg_largeobject. Like, say, pg_dump. > > Is it a right behavior, even if we have permission checks on large objects? Can we use column-level access control here? REVOKE ALL ON pg_largeobject FROM PUBLIC; => GRANT SELECT (loid) ON pg_largeobject TO PUBLIC; We use "SELECT loid FROM pg_largeobject LIMIT 1" in pg_dump. We could replace pg_largeobject_metadata instead if we try to fix only pg_dump, but it's no wonder that any other user applications use such queries. I think to allow reading loid is a balanced solution. > If so, we can inject a hardwired rule to prevent to select pg_largeobject > when lo_compat_privileges is turned off, instead of REVOKE ALL FROM PUBLIC. Is it enough to run "GRANT SELECT ON pg_largeobject TO PUBLIC" ? Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: