| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: simply custom variables protection |
| Date: | 2007-04-07 18:02:24 |
| Message-ID: | 10708.1175968944@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
>> How does a user protect a custom variable using your code? I don't see
>> any API that would allow that.
> Every module is responsibile for protectiong own custom variables. Only
> module knows if some variable needs protection. And after module
> inicialisation module can call ArmorCustomVariable function. From this
> moment only superuser can modify this custom variable. If it call
> ResetPGVariable() function before then default value is protected.
Well, that's the other problem with this approach: the variable is
protected only against changes occurring *after* ArmorCustomVariable
is called. Throwing away the existing value using ResetPGVariable is
surely undesirable if the existing value was in fact set by a superuser.
What's worse, I think it is a security hole, because ResetPGVariable's
effects can be rolled back by aborting the transaction in which the
module load occurs.
In any case we've now got a three-step rather than one-step method
for setting up a custom variable, with various interesting failure
modes if you do the steps in the wrong order. This is not a clean
solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-07 18:11:48 | Re: LIMIT/SORT optimization |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-04-07 17:55:58 | Re: simply custom variables protection |