From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
Date: | 2021-06-03 16:30:42 |
Message-ID: | A01CC099-8EFE-4EA2-A696-55FEBE2FBBEE@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 3, 2021, at 9:03 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I agree so some possibility of locking search_path or possibility to control who and when can change it can increase security. This should be a core feature. It's maybe more generic issue - same functionality can be required for work_mem setting, maybe max_paralel_workers_per_gather, and other GUC
Chapman already suggested a mechanism in [1] to allow chaining together additional validators for GUCs.
When setting search_path, the check_search_path(char **newval, void **extra, GucSource source) function is invoked. As I understand Chapman's proposal, additional validators could be added to any GUC. You could implement search_path restrictions by defining additional validators that enforce whatever restriction you like.
Marko, does his idea sound workable for your needs? I understood your original proposal as only restricting the value of search_path within security definer functions. This idea would allow you to restrict it everywhere, and not tailored to just that context.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/608C9A81.3020006@anastigmatix.net
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2021-06-03 16:34:24 | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-06-03 16:04:48 | Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size? |