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

Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1668)

From: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1668)
Date: 2009-03-03 07:39:30
Message-ID: 49ACDEB2.2090600@ak.jp.nec.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
The series of SE-PostgreSQL patches for v8.4 were updated:

[1/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-core-8.4devel-r1668.patch
[2/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-utils-8.4devel-r1668.patch
[3/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-policy-8.4devel-r1668.patch
[4/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-docs-8.4devel-r1668.patch
[5/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-tests-8.4devel-r1668.patch

- List of updates:
  * It is rebased to the latest CVS HEAD.
  * sepgsqlCheckProcedureInstall() is moved to sepgsql/hooks.c from
    sepgsql/perms.c, like as other sepgsqlCheckXXXX() is delopyed on.
  * sepgsqlCheckDatabaseAccess() is moved to pg_database_aclcheck()
    from pg_database_aclmask(), because pg_aclmask() can be invoked
    on ExecGrant_xxxx, but SE-PostgreSQL should not intervene existing
    DAC policy.
  * sepgsqlCheckProcedureExecute() is moved to pg_proc_aclcheck()
    in same reason.

These changes are obvious and minor, and rest of implementations
keep unchanged, so don't consider this updates needs to review
whole of patches again, please.

I would like to know the current status of reviewing the patches.
It is welcome, if it is not still 100% completed and partial ones.
And, please tell me, if I missed anything.
Anyway, it is obvious we don't have enough time!

Thanks,
-- 
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-03-03 07:58:40
Subject: Re: Why do we keep UnusedLock1 in LWLockId?
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2009-03-03 07:17:06
Subject: SIGHUP during recovery

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