Re: RFC: seccomp-bpf support

On 2019-Aug-28, Joshua Brindle wrote:

> I think we need to reign in the thread somewhat. The feature allows
> end users to define some sandboxing within PG. Nothing is being forced
> on anyone but we would like the capability to harden a PG installation
> for many reasons already stated.

My own objection to this line of development is that it doesn't seem
that any useful policy (allowed/denied syscall list) is part or intends
to be part of the final feature. So we're shipping a hook system for
which each independent vendor is going to develop their own policy. Joe
provided an example syscall list, but it's not part of the patch proper;
and it seems, per the discussion, that the precise syscall list to use
is a significant fraction of this.

So, as part of a committable patch, IMO it'd be good to have some sort
of final list of syscalls -- maybe as part of the docbook part of the
patch.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services