From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor() |
Date: | 2023-07-06 17:09:20 |
Message-ID: | 20230706170920.pftg3ptzuo3nd62q@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-07-05 14:10:42 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:40:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> >> Hmm, shouldn't we disallow moving the function to another schema, if the
> >> function's schema was originally determined at extension creation time?
> >> I'm not sure we really want to allow moving objects of an extension to a
> >> different schema.
> >
> > Why not? I do not believe that an extension's objects are required
> > to all be in the same schema.
>
> Yes, I don't see what we would gain by putting restrictions regarding
> which schema an object is located in, depending on which schema an
> extension uses.
Well, it adds an exploitation opportunity. If other functions in the extension
reference the original location (explicitly or via search_path), somebody else
can create a function there, which might be called from a more privileged
context. Obviously permissions limit the likelihood of this being a real
issue.
I also don't think pg_dump will dump the changed schema, which means a
dump/restore leads to a different schema - IMO something to avoid.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2023-07-06 17:14:31 | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2023-07-06 17:01:55 | Re: Avoid overflow with simplehash |