On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 1:47 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I never objected to the idea of being able to disable ALTER
> SYSTEM. I felt that it ought to be part of a larger feature that
> would provide a more bulletproof guarantee that a superuser can't
> alter the system configuration; but I'm clearly in the minority
> on that. I'm content with just having it disable ALTER SYSTEM
> and no more, as long as the documentation is sufficiently clear
> that an uncooperative superuser can easily bypass this if you don't
> back it up with filesystem-level controls.
OK, great. The latest patch doesn't specifically talk about backing it
up with filesystem-level controls, but it does clearly say that this
feature is not going to stop a determined superuser from bypassing the
feature, which I think is the appropriate level of detail. We don't
actually know whether a user has filesystem-level controls available
on their system that are equal to the task; certainly chmod isn't good
enough, unless you can prevent the superuser from just running chmod
again, which you probably can't. An FS-level immutable flag or some
other kind of OS-level wizardry might well get the job done, but I
don't think our documentation needs to speculate about that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com