Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

[Review] fix dblink security hole

From: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmed(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: markokr(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [Review] fix dblink security hole
Date: 2008-09-16 08:13:36
Message-ID: 48CF6AB0.8040004@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Here is my review of the dblink security hole patch written by Marko Kreen:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e51f66da0808070653y3d3d065am5dfa258a6273b849@mail.gmail.com

1 - The patch applies cleanly to the latest GIT repository.
2 - Regression passed before/after the patch.
3 - I have played around with the patch a little and haven't found any 
issue.

[Code review]

4 - In my opinion we should not add the superuser check in 
"DBLINK_GET_CONN" macro and in "dblink_connect" function because we 
already have a function named "dblink_security_check" and there is a 
superuser check in the function. In my opinion we should use this 
function and throw an error if non super user is detected, because 
calling superuser function in multiple places is not a good idea. 
Another point is that if we are not using the function 
"dblink_security_check" then we should delete that function because 
after the patch there will be no effect of this function (I think).

I have attached a patch just for the quick thought. Otherwise there is 
no issue with patch.





[Reviewing a Patch]  from the link 
"http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch"

Submission review
-----------------
  - Is the patch in the standard form?                ( Yes )
  - Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD?    ( I checked it 
with the latest git repository)
  - Does it include reasonable tests, docs, etc?      ( In my opinion 
there should be couple of test cases )

Usability review
----------------------
    - Does the patch actually implement that? (Yes)
    - Do we want that?                        (Not sure about that 
because we are restricting non super user to use dblink )
    - Do we already have it?                            
    - Does it follow SQL spec, or the community-agreed behavior? (Looks 
like)
    - Are there dangers?                                         (I 
don't think so )
    - Have all the bases been covered?                           (Yes)

Feature test
------------
    - Does the feature work as advertised?                         (Yes)
    - Are there corner cases the author has failed to consider?    (I 
don't think so)

Performance review
------------------ 
    - Does the patch slow down simple tests?                      (No)
    - If it claims to improve performance, does it?               (No)
    - Does it slow down other things?                             (No)

Architecture review
-------------------
    - Is everything done in a way that fits together coherently with 
other features/modules? (I have added comments above)
    - Are there interdependencies than can cause 
problems?                                   (I don't think so)

Review review
-------------
    - Did the reviewer cover all the things that kind of reviewer is 
supposed to do?   (should I answer this too)

-- 

  Ibrar Ahmed
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


Attachment: dblink_review.patch
Description: text/x-diff (1.6 KB)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ibrar AhmedDate: 2008-09-16 08:48:45
Subject: [Review] fix dblink security hole
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-09-16 08:12:17
Subject: Re: Coping with nLocks overflow

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group