On 09/04/2013 11:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT, to deal with update/delete the RLS patch needs to constrain order
> of qual application without the crutch of having a separate level of
> subquery; and it's that behavior that I have zero confidence in, either
> as to whether it works as submitted or as to our odds of not breaking it
> in the future.
Wouldn't CASE do that job, albeit in a somewhat ugly manner, and also
protect against malicious RLS functions?
For any subclause in a WHERE clause "(a) OR (b)" you can instead write a
short-circuit OR version as:
CASE WHEN (a) THEN true ELSE (b) END
no?
So, given a row security condition like "(rowowner = current_user AND
rls_malicious_leak())" on table "test", this:
SELECT * FROM test WHERE client_leak_fn();
could be rewritten by row security as:
SELECT *
FROM test
WHERE
CASE WHEN CASE WHEN is_superuser() THEN true ELSE (rowowner = current_user AND rls_malicious_leak()) END
THEN client_leak_fn()
END;
in other words: if the user is the superuser, don't evaluate the RLS
predicate, just assume they have the right to see the row. Otherwise
evaluate the RLS predicate to determine whether they can see the row. In
either case, if they have the right to see the row, run the original
WHERE clause.
My main concern is that it'd be relying on a guarantee that CASE is
always completely ordered, and that might not be ideal. It's also
hideously ugly, and future optimiser smarts could create unexpected issues.
Unless you propose the creaton of a new short-circuit left-to-right
order guaranteed OR operator, and think the planner/optimizer should be
taught special case rules to prevent it from doing pull-up / push-down
or pre-evaluating subclauses for it, I suspect the notion of using
security barrier views or subqueries is still going to be the sanest way
to do it.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services