Re: [GENERAL] column-level update privs + lock table

On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 19:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/11/25 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> > (2010/10/16 4:49), Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> >> [Moving to -hackers]
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 09:41 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Josh Kupershmidt<schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I noticed that granting a user column-level update privileges doesn't
> >>>>> allow that user to issue LOCK TABLE with any mode other than Access
> >>>>> Share.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone think this could be added as a TODO?
> >>>
> >>> Seems so to me, but you raise on Hackers.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Simon. Attached is a simple patch to let column-level UPDATE
> >> privileges allow a user to LOCK TABLE in a mode higher than Access
> >> Share. Small doc. update and regression test update are included as
> >> well. Feedback is welcome.
> >>
> >
> > I checked your patch, then I'd like to mark it as "ready for committer".
> >
> > The point of this patch is trying to solve an incompatible behavior
> > between SELECT ... FOR SHARE/UPDATE and LOCK command.
> >
> > On ExecCheckRTEPerms(), it allows the required accesses when no columns
> > are explicitly specified in the query and the current user has necessary
> > privilege on one of columns within the target relation.
> > If we stand on the perspective that LOCK command should take same
> > privileges with the case when we use SELECT ... FOR SHARE/UPDATE without
> > specifying explicit columns, like COUNT(*), the existing LOCK command
> > seems to me odd.
> >
> > I think this patch fixes the behavior as we expected.
>
> I'm not totally convinced that this is the correct behavior. It seems
> a bit surprising that UPDATE privilege on a single column is enough to
> lock out all SELECT activity from the table. It's actually a bit
> surprising that even full-table UPDATE privileges are enough to do
> this, but this change would allow people to block access to data they
> can neither see nor modify. That seems counterintuitive, if not a
> security hole.

This comment misses the point. A user can already lock every row of a
table, if they choose, by issuing SELECT ... FOR SHARE/UPDATE, if they
have update rights on a single column. So the patch does not increase
the rights of the user, it merely allows it to happen in a rational way
and in a way that makes SELECT and LOCK work the same.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services