| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |
| Date: | 2010-05-21 19:15:27 |
| Message-ID: | 22555.1274469327@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (1) no access to system calls (including file and network I/O)
>> (2) no access to process memory, other than variables defined within the
>> PL.
>> What else?
> Doesn't subvert the general PostgreSQL security mechanisms? Not sure
> how to formulate that.
As long as you can't do database access except via SPI, that should be
covered. So I guess the next item on the list is no, or at least
restricted, access to functions outside the PL's own language.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2010-05-21 19:22:00 | Re: changed source files. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-21 19:13:22 | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |