| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
| Date: | 2022-06-22 15:52:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3484653.1655913147@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 8:10 AM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>> In case port->authn_id is NULL then the patch is returning the SESSION_USER for the SYSTEM_USER. Perhaps it should return NULL instead.
> If the spec says that SYSTEM_USER "represents the operating system
> user", but we don't actually know who that user was (authn_id is
> NULL), then I think SYSTEM_USER should also be NULL so as not to
> mislead auditors.
Yeah, that seems like a fundamental type mismatch. If we don't know
the OS user identifier, substituting a SQL role name is surely not
the right thing.
I think a case could be made for ONLY returning non-null when authn_id
represents some externally-verified identifier (OS user ID gotten via
peer identification, Kerberos principal, etc).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2022-06-22 16:22:36 | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-06-22 15:45:22 | Re: Devel docs on website reloading |