From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Fix search_path for all maintenance commands |
Date: | 2023-10-31 16:58:02 |
Message-ID: | 20231031165802.GB72255@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 04:04:26PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Do we still want to do this?
>
> Right now, the MAINTAIN privilege is blocking on some way to prevent
> malicious users from abusing the MAINTAIN privilege and search_path to
> acquire the table owner's privileges.
I vote +1 for proceeding with this. You've been threatening to commit this
since July, and from a quick skim, I don't sense any sustained objections.
Given one of the main objections for v16 was the timing, I would rather
commit this relatively early in the v17 cycle so we have ample time to deal
with any breakage it reveals or to further discuss any nuances.
Of course, I am a bit biased because I would love to un-revert MAINTAIN,
but I believe others would like to see that un-reverted, too.
> The approach of locking down search_path during maintenance commands
> would solve the problem, but it means that we are enforcing search_path
> in some contexts and not others. That's not great, but it's similar to
> what we are doing when we ignore SECURITY INVOKER and run the function
> as the table owner during a maintenance command, or (by default) for
> subscriptions.
Given the experience gained from the 2018 security fixes [0], I think this
is okay.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20230715211333.GB3675150%40rfd.leadboat.com
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-10-31 16:58:18 | Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2023-10-31 16:55:42 | Re: Allowing TRUNCATE of FK target when session_replication_role=replica |