Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?
Date: 2010-05-21 18:22:33
Message-ID: AANLkTinLAh5uFwJ5E4_K8JFrJK2TTTsVmBSdh1w8NJex@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So... can we get back to coming up with a reasonable
>> definition,
>
> (1) no access to system calls (including file and network I/O)
>
> (2) no access to process memory, other than variables defined within the
> PL.
>
> What else?

Doesn't subvert the general PostgreSQL security mechanisms? Not sure
how to formulate that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-05-21 18:53:19 Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-05-21 18:21:37 Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?