Re: Missing warning on revokes with grant options

From: Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing warning on revokes with grant options
Date: 2023-05-19 17:22:12
Message-ID: CAAvxfHen_fBZQw7BfRmN-4=Es1tb1Ah=kGLLM_7mcXo8a0up8A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sorry for the multiple consecutive emails. I just came across this
comment that explains the current behavior in restrict_and_check_grant

/*
* Restrict the operation to what we can actually grant or revoke, and
* issue a warning if appropriate. (For REVOKE this isn't quite what the
* spec says to do: the spec seems to want a warning only if no privilege
* bits actually change in the ACL. In practice that behavior seems much
* too noisy, as well as inconsistent with the GRANT case.)
*/

However, I still think the current behavior is a bit strange since
holding a grant option is not directly required to issue a revoke.
Perhaps for revoke the logic should be:
- for each specified privilege:
- if the set of acl items on the specified object that includes
this privilege is non empty
- and none of those acl items have the current role as the
grantor
- then issue a warning.

Thanks,
Joe Koshakow

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-05-19 18:33:36 Re: The documentation for READ COMMITTED may be incomplete or wrong
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-05-19 17:16:16 Re: psql: Could we get "-- " prefixing on the **** QUERY **** outputs? (ECHO_HIDDEN)