Re: Updated instrumentation patch

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Updated instrumentation patch
Date: 2005-07-30 15:29:09
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE094634@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches


> > > Also, as I already said, marking it as PGC_POSTMASTER is
> simply not
> > > adequate security. Once we have some sort of remote
> admin feature,
> > > I would expect it to support adjustment of even postmaster-level
> > > options (this would mean forcing a database restart of
> course) ---
> > > you can hardly say that you have a complete remote admin
> solution if
> > > you can't change shared_buffers or max_connections.
> >
> > The point is you cannot *enable* it once it is *disabled*. Thus you
> > cannot *elevate* your privileges. Thus not a security issue.
>
> I think any secure solution is going to have to block all
> write access to postgresql.conf, and that includes all the
> COPY TO and all the untrusted languages.

Exactly. But we won't get that for 8.1. So for now, we block all write
access through *new* functions, per the "let's at least not add more
security holes" rule.

//Magnus

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-30 15:38:54 Re: Updated instrumentation patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-30 15:21:22 Re: Updated instrumentation patch