| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Lind <andreaslindpetersen(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: equalPolicy() doesn't compare the permissive flag |
| Date: | 2026-07-10 06:58:22 |
| Message-ID: | ff2b9ee994eb490a10fd0ade4d6ff5d3c8ee6bfe.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2026-07-09 at 16:28 +0200, Andreas Lind wrote:
> While working on an unrelated RLS patch, I noticed that equalPolicy() in
> relcache.c doesn't compare the permissive field of RowSecurityPolicy. It
> compares polcmd, hassublinks, policy_name, roles, qual, and
> with_check_qual, but not permissive, so two policies that are identical
> in every other respect except their PERMISSIVE/RESTRICTIVE designation
> are reported as equal.
>
> equalPolicy() is used (via equalRSDesc()) by RelationRebuildRelation()
> to decide whether an open relation's existing row-security descriptor
> can be kept as-is across a relcache rebuild, or must be treated as
> changed. ALTER POLICY has no way to flip a policy's
> PERMISSIVE/RESTRICTIVE designation, but DROP POLICY followed by CREATE
> POLICY of the same name, roles, command, and quals, differing only in AS
> PERMISSIVE/RESTRICTIVE, hits this exactly: the stale descriptor would be
> kept, leaving the relcache out of sync with how the policy should now
> combine with others (PERMISSIVE policies are ORed together; RESTRICTIVE
> policies are ANDed with the rest).
>
> I wasn't able to construct a simple SQL reproduction:
> RelationRebuildRelation() (and thus this comparison) is only reached
> while the relation is still open (refcount > 0) at the moment its
> invalidation is processed. Closing and reopening the relation between
> statements -- the usual behavior -- sidesteps the bug, and a second
> session can't hold the relation open across the DROP/CREATE either,
> since both need AccessExclusiveLock. This looks analogous to
> ab6d1cd26eb, which fixed the same kind of omission in this function for
> the USING qual and likewise shipped without a test.
I don't know if the omission to check for identical PERMISSIVE or
RESTRICTIVE settings can lead to real problems, but I feel that it
violates the promise of the function. So I am +1 on this change.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2026-07-10 07:00:02 | Re: sequencesync worker race with REFRESH SEQUENCES |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-07-10 06:51:58 | Re: Adding a stored generated column without long-lived locks |