From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Updated instrumentation patch |
Date: | 2005-07-30 15:14:03 |
Message-ID: | 200507301514.j6UFE3v26751@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> > Per recent discussion, here is yet another updated version of the
> > instrumentation patch. Changes:
>
> > * Added guc option "disable_remote_admin", that disables any write
> > operations (write, unlink, rename) even for the superuser. Set as
> > PGC_POSTMASTER so it cannot be changed remotely.
>
> I was envisioning it as disabling all filesystem access --- read as well
> as write. Essentially the abstract concept I want is that with this on,
> even a superuser cannot use Postgres to get at the underlying operating
> system. A name like "enable_filesystem_access" would probably be more
> appropriate.
>
> Also, as I already said, marking it as PGC_POSTMASTER is simply not
> adequate security. Once we have some sort of remote admin feature,
> I would expect it to support adjustment of even postmaster-level options
> (this would mean forcing a database restart of course) --- you can
> hardly say that you have a complete remote admin solution if you can't
> change shared_buffers or max_connections.
How does this affect COPY? Is it not important because COPY can not
write a null byte?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-07-30 15:16:40 | Re: Updated instrumentation patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-30 15:07:44 | Re: Updated instrumentation patch |