Re: Restricting Direct Access to a C Function in PostgreSQL

From: Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Restricting Direct Access to a C Function in PostgreSQL
Date: 2024-08-11 13:34:41
Message-ID: CACX+KaPzN_q9uOjcr=JzYG6EWQ7JKwev2j+ozwUNn1Kx5LX4qA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks for the responses.

> I would go with the GRANT approach. Make my_func() a
SECURITY DEFINER function, and revoke access to my_func_extended() for
all other roles.
This sounds reasonable, and can be one of the options.

> Dunno how
complicated the logic in my_func() is, if that makes sense.
Actually my_func_extended already exists hence I don't want
to touch its C definition, nor wanted to duplicate the logic.

>The SPI API is not difficult, and this looks like best option
Sorry didn't understand this part, are you suggesting I can have called
my_func_extended() through SPI inside my_func(), but didnt that also
required
my_func_extended() declaration present in SQL ? And If that is present then
anyone can call my_func_extended() directly.

Regards
Ayush
AWS

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2024-08-11 13:43:47 Re: Restricting Direct Access to a C Function in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2024-08-11 12:53:31 Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson