| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_parameter_aclcheck() and trusted extensions |
| Date: | 2022-07-19 21:41:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20220719214142.GA3720087@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 04:27:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> However, I wonder if a
>> better way to fix this is to provide a way to stop set_config_option() from
>> throwing errors (e.g., setting elevel to -1). That way, we could remove
>> the manual permissions checks in favor of always using the real ones, which
>> might help prevent similar bugs in the future.
>
> I thought about that for a bit. You could almost do it today if you
> passed elevel == DEBUG5; the ensuing log chatter for failures would be
> down in the noise compared to everything else you would see with
> min_messages cranked down that far. However,
>
> (1) As things stand, set_config_option()'s result does not distinguish
> no-permissions failures from other problems, so we'd need some rejiggering
> of its API anyway.
>
> (2) As you mused upthread, it's possible that ACL_SET isn't what we should
> be checking here, but some more-specific privilege. So I'd just as soon
> keep this privilege check separate from set_config_option's.
I think we'd also need to keep the manual permissions checks for
placeholders, so it wouldn't save much, anyway.
> I'll push ahead with fixing it like this.
Sounds good.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-07-19 22:08:38 | Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures |
| Previous Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2022-07-19 21:12:39 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |