On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:43:05AM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Sam Mason wrote:
> >This would seem to imply that all user defined trusted code has to
> >perform its own permission checks. How is MAC any different from DAC in
> >the presence of code such as:
> >
> >CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION show_customers () RETURNS SETOF RECORD
> > LANGUAGE 'sql'
> > SECURITY_LABEL = 'system_u:object_r:sepgsql_trusted_proc_exec_t:s0'
> > AS 'SELECT * FROM customer';
>
> In this case, confined users cannot create a function labeled as
> 'system_u:object_r:sepgsql_trusted_proc_exec_t:s0', because it is
> controlled by db_procedure:{create} permission.
Yes, that seems reasonable. The fact that you're still talking about
"confined users" is slightly worrying and would seem to imply that
there is still a superuser/normal user divide--it's probably just a
terminology thing though.
One thing I know I don't understand is what the security labels actually
mean; I've had a couple of searches through your pages now and can't see
anything described nor pointers to external documentation.
> Confined user can create a function with "user_sepgsql_proc_exec_t"
> (which is the default one for confined users), but it is not a trusted
> procedure, so the "SELECT * FROM customer" is executed with confined
> user's privileges as is, then it will be failed due to the lack of
> permission on the customer.credit.
So an "unconfined user" (whatever that means??) is basically working
with DACs then?
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
