| From: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] unalias of ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE |
| Date: | 2009-04-19 08:21:42 |
| Message-ID: | 49EADF16.3050400@kaigai.gr.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> However, ACL_UPDATE and ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE internally shares same bit
>> so SE-PostgreSQL cannot discriminate between UPDATE and SELECT FOR UPDATE
>> or SHARE.
>
> Why should it discriminate between them?
Typically, we cannot set up a foreign-key which refers a primary-key within
read-only table from SELinux's viewpoint.
The vanilla access control mechanism switches the current userid, and it enables
to run SELECT FOR SHARE without ACL_UPDATE, but SELinux's security model does not
have a concept of ownership.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mito | 2009-04-19 11:08:43 | Recursive plpgsql function in rule |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-04-19 07:41:26 | Re: [PATCH] unalias of ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE |