| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: security label support, part.2 |
| Date: | 2010-08-18 12:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=q7H=M4sW-CA+oZd2E++oxdO=zmDa54UJu90ws@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> In the end, I'm thinking that if the external security module wants to
> enforce a check against all the children of a parent, they could quite
> possibly handle that already and do it in such a way that it won't break
> depending on the specific query. To wit, it could query the catalog to
> determine if the current table is a parent of any children, and if so,
> go check the labels/permissions/etc on those children. I'd much rather
> have something where the permissions check either succeeds or fails
> against the parent, depending on the permissions of the parent and its
> children, than on what the query is itself and what conditionals are
> applied to it.
Interesting idea. Again, I haven't read the code, but seems worth
further investigation, at least.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2010-08-18 12:59:13 | Re: Progress indication prototype |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-08-18 12:52:49 | Re: security label support, part.2 |