Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Stephen Frost
Тема Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Дата
Msg-id 20050725175817.GH24207@ns.snowman.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> My understanding of things is that per spec, a SECURITY DEFINER function
> can be owned by either a user or a role, and so within the function
> either CURRENT_USER or CURRENT_ROLE would return the owner and the other
> would return NULL.  Emulating this would require a hard distinction
> between users and roles that is simply not there in our implementation,
> which is why I think they should both return the owner.

I would have been more inclined to just pick one and always set it and
leave the other always null.  For that, CURRENT_USER would be more
backwards-compatible, but for our implementation I'd tend to think
CURRENT_ROLE is more appropriate.  That'd follow the spec closer and
would be closer to what functions written to the spec would expect.

I don't use SECURITY DEFINER functions much though so perhaps others
have a stronger opinion.  I've been a bit suprised at the lack of
commentary from other people, perhaps they're just waiting to destroy
whatever we come up with once it's actually been implemented. :)

> To some extent SET ROLE ALL can be emulated by ALTER USER ... INHERIT.

Yeah, but that affects all sessions too, not just a single one, which
makes it quite a different thing.

> I'm of two minds about whether an unprivileged user should be allowed
> to adjust his own rolinherit flag --- in most cases it seems pretty
> harmless (and Oracle evidently thinks it is) --- but one could imagine
> that the roles have been set up on the assumption that you can't get
> more than one role's privileges at a time.  INHERIT (or SET ROLE ALL)
> would break that assumption, and perhaps allow people to do unwanted
> stuff.

This is actually what I was thinking about when I was saying at some
point prior in this thread that we should have an option to indicate if
SET ROLE ALL is allowed or not.  I don't think that users should be
allowed to adjust their own rolinherit flag.  I think the default should
probably be 'true', even for users, but if an admin sets it to false
then I think that should be enforced and users shouldn't be allowed to
change it.

I suspect it's possible to disable 'SET ROLE ALL' in Oracle, and to turn
off having it done upon connection.  I'd be somewhat suprised if it
wasn't possible but I havn't really investigated it either way.  I don't
know if Oracle has a way to let you do it per-user/per-role though.
Thanks,
    Stephen

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Larry Rosenman
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: regression failure on latest CVS
Следующее
От: Mark Wong
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC