| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks |
| Date: | 2013-01-29 14:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKkDR=W0UusfP+wPhA-JHd2Sr+osr7DFc__kV+vyMZ3WQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29 January 2013 13:30, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> It makes unavailable to control execution of
> functions from viewpoint of selinux, and here is no way selinux
> to prevent to execute functions defined by other domains, or
> others being not permitted.
> Also, what we want to do is almost same as existing permission
> checks, except for its criteria to make access control decision.
Do you have a roadmap of all the things this relates to?
If selinux has a viewpoint, I'd like to be able to see a list of
capabilities and then which ones are currently missing. I guess I'm
looking for external assurance that someone somewhere needs this and
that it fits into a complete overall plan of what we should do. Just
like we are able to use SQLStandard as a guide as to what we need to
implement, we would like something to refer back to. Does this have a
request id, specification document page number or whatever?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-01-29 14:11:49 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-01-29 13:42:55 | Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that |