Re: sepgsql and materialized views

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> 2013/2/7 Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>:
> > Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> >
> >> So, I'd like to review two options.
> >> 1) we uses db_table object class for materialized-views for
> >> a while, until selinux-side become ready. Probably, v9.3 will
> >> use db_table class then switched at v9.4.
> >> 2) we uses db_materialized_view object class from the
> >> begining, but its permission checks are ignored because
> >> installed security policy does not support this class yet.
> >>
> >> My preference is 2), even though we cannot apply label
> >> based permission checks until selinux support it, because
> >> 1) makes troubles when selinux-side become ready to
> >> support new db_materialized_view class. Even though
> >> policy support MV class, working v9.3 will ignore the policy.
> >>
> >> Let me ask selinux folks about this topic also.
> >
> > To make sure I understand, the current patch is consistent with
> > option 1?
> >
> I believe so, even though I didn't take deep and detailed investigation
> yet.
>
> > It sounds like I have code from a prior version of the
> > patch pretty close to what you describe for option 2, so that can
> > be put back in place if you confirm that as the preferred option.
> >
> As above, I'd like to suggest the option 2.
> Could you once remove the updates related to contrib/sepgsql?
> I'll have a discussion about new materialized_view object class
> on selinux list soon, then I'll submit a patch towards contrib/sepgsql
> according to the consensus here.

Has this progressed?

Should we consider this a 9.3 release blocker? sepgsql already has a red box
warning about its limitations, so adding the limitation that materialized
views are unrestricted wouldn't be out of the question.

Thanks,
nm

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com