| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2010-08-17 18:07:18 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimMzCagPgVZgve7yD1UK_CapSiXjn=pBFbYiGhQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> No.. and I'm not sure we ever would. What we *have* done is removed
> all permissions checking on child tables when a parent is being
> queried..
Yeah. I'm not totally sure that is sensible for a MAC environment.
Heck, it's arguably incorrect (though perhaps quite convenient) in a
DAC environment. Anyway, I wonder if it would be sensible to try to
adjust the structure of the DAC permissions checks so enhanced
security providers can make their own decision about how to handle
this case.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-08-17 18:08:51 | Re: Progress indication prototype |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-17 18:01:00 | Re: security label support, part.2 |