Re: [HACKERS] [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:05 PM, KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: The other need an explanation. A database superuser is allowed to update system catalog by hand, if it is allowed by the security policy. For example, he will be able to update relkind in some of pg_class, even if it never happen in general DDLs. If a relkind is changed from 'r' to 'c', we deal pg_attribute entries pointing the tuple as db_tuple class, not db_column class, because they are not already columns. It means we fundamentally have to check permissions on pg_attribute when pg_class is updated, or pg_attribute should have its identifier information. I think the later approach is more simple. and what stops a superuser (if it's allowed by the security policy) from changing pg_attribute.attkind? protecting a DBA (DataBase Aniquilator) from shooting himself on the foot in situations like this one is not a good approach, IMHO... Please consider an another instance. In filesystem, 'x' permission bit has different meaning between files and directries. If a derectory without no child files is handled as a regular file suddenly, it can make a confusion. It is a similar situation. doesn't understand this... -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:05 PM, KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
The other need an explanation. A database superuser is allowed
to update system catalog by hand, if it is allowed by the security
policy. For example, he will be able to update relkind in some
of pg_class, even if it never happen in general DDLs.
If a relkind is changed from 'r' to 'c', we deal pg_attribute
entries pointing the tuple as db_tuple class, not db_column class,
because they are not already columns.
It means we fundamentally have to check permissions on pg_attribute
when pg_class is updated, or pg_attribute should have its identifier
information. I think the later approach is more simple.
and what stops a superuser (if it's allowed by the security policy)
from changing pg_attribute.attkind?
There are various kind of permission in the security policy.
When someone tries to change pg_attribute.attkind, he should have
db_column:{relabelfrom} privilege, because it makes changes to
its object class which is a part of security attribute.
However, when someone tries to change pg_attribute.attnotnull,
he should have db_column:{setattr}, because this operation does not
make changes in its security attribute.
In this case, db_column:{setattr} should be allowed to the client
who connected as a superuser, but db_column:{relabelfrom} should
not be allowed.
If you are not familiar to SELinux, please consider differences
between file ownership and 'w' permission on UNIX filesystem.
protecting a DBA (DataBase Aniquilator) from shooting himself
on the foot in situations like this one is not a good approach, IMHO...
It is not an issue the attkind tries to resolve.
If its object class (part of security attribute) is determined by external
factors, we have to lookup the external factors for each pg_attribute, and
we also have to check permissions on referrer side on changes in external
factors fundamentally.
It is a costly operatin, despite the factor (relkind) is almost constant.
Please consider an another instance. In filesystem, 'x' permission
bit has different meaning between files and directries. If a derectory
without no child files is handled as a regular file suddenly, it can
make a confusion. It is a similar situation.
doesn't understand this...
I wanted to introduce it is a strange behavior that same object is
handled as another sort of one depending on external factors.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute
It is an idea to improve the implementation of SE-PostgreSQL. I need a copied relkind in pg_attribute, to help its decision making. When we access on pg_attribute via ALTER TABLE or DML statement directly, SE-PostgreSQL checks privilleges for the fetched tuples. If the relation pointed by its attrelid has RELKIND_RELATION, the fetched tuple is a column, so db_column object class should be applied. Otherwise, db_tuple object class should be applied, because it is not a column, like an entity of composite type. The current implementation need to lookup RELOID system cache to identify the relkind of the relation, because pg_attribtue does not have any information about relkind. However, I also think it is not an ideal implementation, even if its frequency is enough small. So, I have a plan to put a new member named as attkind into pg_attribute to hold a copied value of its relkind. It enables to identify the attribute without looking up system cache, so it is better than current one. The pg_class.relkind is always unchanged, so it does not have any problematical point. Please comment anything, if you have alternative idea or opinions. If reviewer intend to comment about the point, it can be fixed with the above way. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM, KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: The current implementation need to lookup RELOID system cache to identify the relkind of the relation, because pg_attribtue does not have any information about relkind. However, I also think it is not an ideal implementation, even if its frequency is enough small. but you still can do it, right? there are any other advantages, like something you can't do now? if not, i think you need to probe that there will be any benefit in speed and that is significant otherwise this seems like premature optimization and that AFAIR is the root of all evil :) -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute
Jaime Casanova wrote: On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM, KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: The current implementation need to lookup RELOID system cache to identify the relkind of the relation, because pg_attribtue does not have any information about relkind. However, I also think it is not an ideal implementation, even if its frequency is enough small. but you still can do it, right? there are any other advantages, like something you can't do now? Yes, we still can see relkind via system cache. When we fetch a tuple from pg_attribute, it need to look up the RELOID system cache to get the relkind of its relation. The reason why I considered the change is preferable is advantanges in performance and robustness in security design. The first one is obvious. If we have attkind member, it is not necessary to look up the RELOID system cache for each tuples. The other need an explanation. A database superuser is allowed to update system catalog by hand, if it is allowed by the security policy. For example, he will be able to update relkind in some of pg_class, even if it never happen in general DDLs. If a relkind is changed from 'r' to 'c', we deal pg_attribute entries pointing the tuple as db_tuple class, not db_column class, because they are not already columns. It means we fundamentally have to check permissions on pg_attribute when pg_class is updated, or pg_attribute should have its identifier information. I think the later approach is more simple. Please consider an another instance. In filesystem, 'x' permission bit has different meaning between files and directries. If a derectory without no child files is handled as a regular file suddenly, it can make a confusion. It is a similar situation. So, I want to put a needed attribute to identify itself. Thanks, if not, i think you need to probe that there will be any benefit in speed and that is significant otherwise this seems like premature optimization and that AFAIR is the root of all evil :) -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
