Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers
От | Mark Dilger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 941B8A0F-CF69-471A-A88C-7CFD2705EEEC@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers (Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On May 13, 2021, at 12:18 PM, Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 11:42 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: >> The distinction that Theme+Security would make is that capabilities >> can be categorized by the area of the system: >> -- planner >> -- replication >> -- logging >> ... >> but also by the security implications of what is being done: >> -- host >> -- schema >> -- network > Since the "security" buckets are being used for both proposals -- how > you would deal with overlap between them? When a GUC gives you enough > host access to bleed into the schema and network domains, does it get > all three attributes assigned to it, and thus require membership in all > three roles? Yeah, from a security standpoint, pg_host_admin basically gives everything away. I doubt service providers would give the"host" or "network" security to their tenants, but they would probably consider giving "schema" security to the tenants. > (Thanks, by the way, for this thread -- I think a "capability system" > for superuser access is a great idea.) I am happy to work on this, and appreciate feedback.... — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: