Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem

2011/9/7 Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>:
> On 24 August 2011 13:38, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> The (2) is new stuff from the revision in commit-fest 1st. It enables to
>> supply "NOLEAKY" option on CREATE FUNCTION statement, then the function is
>> allowed to distribute across security barrier. Only superuser can set this
>> option.
>
> "NOLEAKY" doesn't really sound appropriate as it sounds like pidgin English.
>  Also, it could be read as "Don't allow leaks in this function".  Could we
> instead use something like TRUSTED or something akin to it being allowed to
> do more than safer functions?  It then describes its level of behaviour
> rather than what it promises not to do.
>
Thanks for your comment. I'm not a native English specker, so it is helpful.

"TRUSTED" sounds meaningful for me, however, it is confusable with a concept
of "trusted procedure" in label-based MAC. It is not only SELinux,
Oracle's label
based security also uses this term to mean a procedure that switches user's
credential during its execution.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/network.111/b28529/storproc.htm

So, how about "CREDIBLE", instead of "TRUSTED"?

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>