Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
От | Mark Dilger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A01CC099-8EFE-4EA2-A696-55FEBE2FBBEE@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 3, 2021, at 9:03 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree so some possibility of locking search_path or possibility to control who and when can change it can increase security.This should be a core feature. It's maybe more generic issue - same functionality can be required for work_mem setting,maybe max_paralel_workers_per_gather, and other GUC Chapman already suggested a mechanism in [1] to allow chaining together additional validators for GUCs. When setting search_path, the check_search_path(char **newval, void **extra, GucSource source) function is invoked. As Iunderstand Chapman's proposal, additional validators could be added to any GUC. You could implement search_path restrictionsby defining additional validators that enforce whatever restriction you like. Marko, does his idea sound workable for your needs? I understood your original proposal as only restricting the value ofsearch_path within security definer functions. This idea would allow you to restrict it everywhere, and not tailored tojust that context. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/608C9A81.3020006@anastigmatix.net — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: