Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2163.1236712657@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704) (Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes: > As far as I can tell, the community feels interested in the > feature set; but relatively unable to contribute since none > of the people have that much of a security background. It > seems the best way to fix that would be to get more people > with a security background more involved. It's experience with the Postgres code base that I'm worried about. I don't question KaiGai-san's security background; I do doubt that he knows where all the skeletons are buried in the PG backend. A couple of very recent examples of that: his patch to fix a problem with inheritance of column privileges was approximately the right thing, but inefficiently duplicated the functionality of nearby code: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-03/msg00196.php and it didn't take Heikki long at all to note an oversight in the part of the latest sepostgres patch that attempted to confine superusers' file read/write abilities: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-03/msg00446.php More generally, there's been no discussion or community buy-in on design questions such as whether the patch should even try to confine superusers on such a fine-grained basis. (I agree with Heikki's thought that this may be a lost cause given our historical design assumption that superusers can do anything.) So I remain strongly of the opinion that what this patch lacks is review from longtime PG hackers. It's not the security community that is missing from the equation. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: