Re: Re: [Pljava-dev] Should creating a new base type require superuser status?
От | Thomas Hallgren |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [Pljava-dev] Should creating a new base type require superuser status? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48954C29.8010604@tada.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [Pljava-dev] Should creating a new base type require superuser status? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > >> This is a non-issue in PL/Java. An integer parameter is never passed by >> reference and there's no way the PL/Java user can get direct access to >> backend memory. >> > > So what exactly does happen when the user deliberately specifies wrong > typlen/typbyval/typalign info when creating a type based on PL/Java > functions? > > Everything is converted into instances of Java classes such as String, byte[], etc. >> I think that assumption is without ground. Java doesn't permit you to >> access memory unless you use Java classes (java.nio stuff) that is >> explicitly designed to do that and you need native code to set such >> things up. A PL/Java user can not do that unless he is able to link in >> other shared objects or dll's to the backend process. >> > > PL/Java itself must be doing "unsafe" things in order to interface with > PG at all. So what your argument really is is that you have managed to > securely sandbox the user-written code you are calling. That might or > might not be true, but I don't think that worrying about it is without > foundation. > > I would be presumptuous to claim that I provide the sandbox. All PL/Java does is to provide the type mapping. The sandbox as such is implicit in Java, much in the same way that it does it for web-browsers etc. Regardless of that, I think there's some difference in expressing a worry that might or might not have a foundation versus claiming that there indeed must be a security hole a mile wide ;-) - thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: