| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2015-01-21 23:38:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20150121233803.GH3062@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Jim Nasby (Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com) wrote:
> On 1/20/15 9:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Jim Nasby (Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com) wrote:
> >>>+1. In particular I'm very concerned with the idea of doing this via roles, because that would make it trivial for any superuser to disable auditing. The only good option I could see to provide this kind of flexibility would be allowing the user to provide a function that accepts role, object, etc and make return a boolean. The performance of that would presumably suck with anything but a C function, but we could provide some C functions to handle simple cases.
> >Superusers will be able to bypass, trivially, anything that's done in
> >the process space of PG. The only possible exception to that being an
> >SELinux or similar solution, but I don't think that's what you were
> >getting at.
>
> Not if the GUC was startup-only. That would allow someone with OS access to the server to prevent a Postgres superuser from disabling it.
That is not accurate.
Being startup-only won't help if the user is a superuser.
> >I certainly don't think having the user provide a C function to specify
> >what should be audited as making any sense- if they can do that, they
> >can use the same hooks pgaudit is using and skip the middle-man. As for
> >the performance concern you raise, I actually don't buy into it at all.
> >It's not like we worry about the performance of checking permissions on
> >objects in general and, for my part, I like to think that's because it's
> >pretty darn quick already.
>
> I was only mentioning C because of performance concerns. If SQL or plpgsql is fast enough then there's no need.
If this is being done for every execution of a query then I agree- SQL
or plpgsql probably wouldn't be fast enough. That doesn't mean it makes
sense to have pgaudit support calling a C function, it simply means that
we need to find another way to configure auditing (which is what I think
I've done...).
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-01-21 23:51:34 | jsonb, unicode escapes and escaped backslashes |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-01-21 23:35:56 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |