Re: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in PGOPTIONS
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in PGOPTIONS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 763512.1658529844@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in PGOPTIONS (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in PGOPTIONS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:56:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> + if (!bootstrap && >> + !IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() && >> + !IsBackgroundWorker && >> + !am_walsender) >> + process_session_preload_libraries(); > I worry that this will be easily missed when adding new types of > non-interactive sessions, but I can't claim to have a better idea. Yeah, that bothered me too. A variant that I'd considered is to create a local variable "bool interactive" and set it properly in each of the arms of the if-chain dealing with authentication (starting about postinit.c:800). While that approach would cover most of the tests shown above, it would not have exposed the issue of needing to check am_walsender, so I'm not very convinced that it'd be any better. Another idea is to add a "bool interactive" parameter to InitPostgres, thereby shoving the issue out to the call sites. Still wouldn't expose the am_walsender angle, but conceivably it'd be more future-proof anyway? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: