| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations. |
| Date: | 2023-06-19 22:58:55 |
| Message-ID: | 578fb4be80247570e6a05924908765a0b345971e.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 16:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that this is a real security issue and am not
Can you expand on that a bit? You mean a practical security issue for
the intended use cases?
> very sanguine about waiting another year to fix it, but at the same
> time, I'm somewhat worried that the proposed fix might be too narrow
> or wrongly-shaped. I'm not too convinced that we've properly
> understood what all of the problems in this area are. :-(
Would it be acceptable to document that the MAINTAIN privilege (along
with TRIGGER and, if I understand correctly, REFERENCES) carries
privilege escalation risk for the grantor?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-06-20 00:37:33 | pgsql: Fix failure at promotion with 2PC transactions and archiving ena |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-19 21:12:06 | pgsql: fd.c: Retry after EINTR in more places |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-06-19 23:28:38 | Optimizing "boundary cases" during backward scan B-Tree index descents |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-19 22:50:55 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |