On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3) In walreceiver.c's pg_stat_get_wal_receiver's:
> - Launch pg_stat_get_wal_receiver and take a checkpoint on it.
> - Pass the lookups of pid and ready_to_display.
> - Make the WAL receiver stop.
> - The view reports inconsistent data. If the WAL receiver data was
> just initialized, the caller would get back PID values or similar 0.
> Particularly a WAL receiver marked with !ready_to_display could show
> data to the caller. That's not cool.
This can actually leak password information to any user who is a
member of the group DEFAULT_ROLE_READ_ALL_STATS, though the window to
put hands on this password information is very small, it can be
possible if the WAL receiver gets down and restarted for a reason or
another during a maintenance window for example:
1) The user queries pg_stat_wal_receiver, for example take a
breakpoint just after the check on walrcv->ready_to_display.
2) Restart the primary once, forcing the standby to spawn a new WAL receiver.
3) Breakpoint on the WAL receiver process, with something like that to help:
--- a/src/backend/replication/walreceiver.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/walreceiver.c
@@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ WalReceiverMain(void)
/* Fetch information required to start streaming */ walrcv->ready_to_display = false;
+ pg_usleep(10000000L); /* 10s */ strlcpy(conninfo, (char *) walrcv->conninfo, MAXCONNINFO); strlcpy(slotname,
(char*) walrcv->slotname, NAMEDATALEN); startpoint = walrcv->receiveStart;
4) continue the session querying pg_stat_wal_receiver, at this stage
it has information with the WAL receiver data set as
!ready_to_display. If the connection string includes a password, this
becomes visible as well.
If queried at high frequency, pg_stat_wal_receiver may show up some
information. Postgres 9.6 includes this leak as well, but there is no real
leak non-superusers will just see NULL fields for this view. In Postgres
10 though, any member of this group for statistics can see leaking
information. Based on that, this is an open item, so I have added it back
now to the list, moved from the section for older bugs.
--
Michael