| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interpretation of TRUSTED |
| Date: | 2005-02-08 23:21:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4209497B.2010205@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:12:07PM +0100, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is it OK to design a trusted language so that it allows access to
>>>the filesystem provided that the session user is a super-user?
>>>
>>>
>
>AFAICS, what Thomas proposes would be exactly equivalent to root running
>scripts owned by non-root users --- in this case, if session user is
>root then functions written by other people would be allowed to do
>things they normally shouldn't be able to do. It strikes me as a great
>loophole for Trojan-horse functions. Not that a sane superuser would
>run functions controlled by other people in the first place.
>
>
>
>
Agreed.
It's also not how other PLs work. I don't think this definition should
be up to the individual language. So my answer to his question above
would be "No".
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-02-09 02:02:02 | Re: Interpretation of TRUSTED |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-08 23:08:58 | Re: Interpretation of TRUSTED |