From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Subject: | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704) |
Date: | 2009-03-10 11:48:32 |
Message-ID: | 87skll7g4v.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> If we drop the goal of trying to restrict what a superuser can do, is the
>> patch still useful?
>
> I want to keep permission checks on files specified by users, because
> the "superuser" permission affects very wide scope, and all or nothing
> policy in other word.
> However, the combination of clients and files is not so simple, and
> I think it is necessary to apply permission checks individually.
I would think the big advantage of something like SELinux is precisely in
cases like this. So for example a client that has a capability that allows him
to read a file can pass that capability to the server and be able to use COPY
to read it directly on the server.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-03-10 12:03:10 | Re: V4 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4 |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-03-10 11:02:05 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704) |