From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks |
Date: | 2013-04-12 13:00:51 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobep=DSM904H+qKienWz5t+-grEz1ZQ1S+kDwBUx-K2vw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> Thanks. I could find two obvious wording stuffs here, please see smaller
> one of the attached patches. I didn't fixup manner to use "XXX" in source
> code comments.
Committed.
> Also, the attached function-execute-permission patch is a rebased
> version. I rethought its event name should be OAT_FUNCTION_EXECUTE,
> rather than OAT_FUNCTION_EXEC according to the manner without
> abbreviation. Other portion is same as previous ones.
Great. This looks fine to me, committed. I also committed your
getObjectIdentity patch, which caused some regression test output
changes. I applied the necessary correction before committing, I
think, but please check.
>> BTW, if it were possible to set things up so that the test_sepgsql
>> script could validate the version of the sepgsql-regtest policy
>> installed, that would eliminate a certain category of errors. I
>> notice also that the regression tests themselves seem to fail if you
>> invoke the script as contrib/sepgsql/test_sepgsql rather than
>> ./test_sepgsql, which suggests another possible pre-validation step.
>>
> Please see the test-script-fixup patch.
> I added "cd `dirname $0`" on top of the script. It makes pg_regress to
> avoid this troubles. Probably, pg_regress was unavailable to read
> sql commands to run.
>
> A problem regarding to validation of sepgsql-regtest policy module
> is originated by semodule commands that takes root privilege to
> list up installed policy modules. So, I avoided to use this command
> in the test_sepgsql script.
> However, I have an idea that does not raise script fail even if "sudo
> semodule -l" returned an error, except for a case when it can run
> correctly and the policy version is not expected one.
> How about your opinion for this check?
Not sure that's too useful. And I don't like the idea of putting sudo
commands in a test harness script. That seems too much like the sort
of thing bad people do.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Broers | 2013-04-12 14:10:53 | Re: [ADMIN] after 9.2.4 patch vacuumdb -avz not analyzing all tables |
Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2013-04-12 12:45:48 | Re: [PATCH] pg_regress and non-default unix socket path |