From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix permission tests for views/tables proven empty by constraint |
Date: | 2013-05-08 09:24:38 |
Message-ID: | 20130508092438.GA7901@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-05-07 21:45:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > If we just reverted your fix and didn't fix it in 9.2 that would also
> > fix the crash right? The bug was only that it leaked the fact that the
> > view was provably empty from the definition?
>
> Well, it might fail to report a permissions violation when the
> not-allowed-to-be-accessed relation could be proven to yield no rows.
> I agree that it's a bit hard to call that a security issue as long as
> you assume that the attacker has access to the system catalogs; and
> even if you don't assume that, being able to discern that there's a
> check constraint on some table doesn't seem like a big leakage.
Couldn't it also cause tables not to be locked that ought to be? That
seems to be the nastier part to me.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-05-08 11:36:55 | pgsql: Use the term "radix tree" instead of "suffix tree" for SP-GiST t |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-08 01:45:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix permission tests for views/tables proven empty by constraint |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-05-08 09:37:23 | Re: GSOC Student Project Idea |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-05-08 08:54:52 | Re: GSOC Student Project Idea |