Re: Assertion failure in base backup code path

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anton <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure in base backup code path
Date: 2014-01-07 16:40:07
Message-ID: CABUevEwV6O+C5JoWFJFsgU7aBOZpnmnf3D3BW4TvwUYWScx=ZQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:

> On 2013-12-23 18:28:51 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2013 12:06 AM, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Magnus,
> > >
> > > It looks to me like the path to do_pg_start_backup() outside of a
> > > transaction context comes from your initial commit of the base backup
> > > facility.
> > > The problem is that you're not allowed to do anything leading to a
> > > syscache/catcache lookup in those contexts.
> >
> > I think that may have come with the addition of the replication privilege
> > actually but that doesn't change the fact that yes, it appears broken..
>
> There was a if (!superuser()) check there before as well, that has the
> same dangers.
>
>
I think the correct fix is to move the security check outside of
do_pg_start_backup() and leave it to the caller. That means
pg_start_backup() for a manual backup. And for a streaming base backup the
check has already been made - you can't get through the authentication step
if you don't have the required permissions.

Does the attached seem right to you?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Attachment Content-Type Size
basebackup_permissions.patch text/x-patch 2.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-01-07 16:43:18 Re: extra_float_digits and casting from real to numeric
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-01-07 16:37:47 Re: generic pseudotype IO functions?