Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, John H <johnhyvr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions
Date: 2024-07-15 23:28:02
Message-ID: c6312d610b65b2cc6d68adceb6df0a5050fb07b9.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2024-07-15 at 16:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh, I had the opposite idea: I wasn't proposing ignoring it. I was
> proposing making it work.

I meant: ignore $extension_schema if the search_path has nothing to do
with an extension. In other words, if it's in a search_path for the
session, or on a function that's not part of an extension.

On re-reading, I see that you mean it should work if they explicitly
set it as a part of a function that *is* part of an extension. And I
agree with that -- just make it work.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Koshakow 2024-07-15 23:55:22 Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping
Previous Message Andres Freund 2024-07-15 22:48:37 Re: CI, macports, darwin version problems