From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [v9.1] Add security hook on initialization of instance |
Date: | 2010-06-14 12:15:12 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik67yVd19UjhfzGAgOeVLnD7U-j06MZb1H2xHLP@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/6/14 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>:
> (2010/06/14 20:01), Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
>>> The attached patch tries to add one more security hook on the
>>> initialization of PostgreSQL instance (InitPostgres()).
>>>
>>> It gives the external security module a chance to initialize itself,
>>> and acquire credential of the client.
>>>
>>> I assumed the best place to initialize the module is just after the
>>> initialize_acl() invocation, if ESP is available.
>>> We have not discussed about this hook yet. So, I'd like to see any
>>> comments.
>>
>> Aren't modules given a __PG_Init or something similar that they can
>> define which will be called when the module is loaded..?
>>
> I assume the security module shall be loaded within 'shared_preload_libraries',
> because we can overwrite 'local_preload_libraries' (PGC_BACKEND) setting using
> connection string, so it allows users to bypass security features, doesn't it?
Yeah, but so what? Stephen's point is still valid.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-06-14 12:35:06 | Re: ExecutorCheckPerms() hook |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-14 12:08:06 | Re: Typo in plperl doc ? |