Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:47:14 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>,
	Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Row-Level Security
Message-ID: <20091214134714.GS17756@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20091212203003.GL17756@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<4B24381F.7050407@agliodbs.com>
	<603c8f070912121918i59f807e3n5ed4d4699227e43@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B24AAED.2080706@kaigai.gr.jp>
	<603c8f070912130411q765c7e9aw371b468229b8e32@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B25C5B2.9010108@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<603c8f070912132135l43bdf060sa5207b5a4d2c918c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B25DE99.2050801@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<603c8f070912140318i6bbc1d63o9e81d409d0b342b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B2626ED.7030104@kaigai.gr.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Zudvf+GOtfOZ8wa6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B2626ED.7030104@kaigai.gr.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)


--Zudvf+GOtfOZ8wa6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

KaiGai,

* KaiGai Kohei (kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
> The reason why I put on the security hook in ExecScan() is to avoid the
> problem that row-cost user defined function can be evaluated earlier
> than row-level security policy. (I believed it was a well-known problem
> at that time yet.) So, I didn't want to append it before optimization.

This is a problem which needs to be addressed and fixed independently.

> I also believe this matter should be resolved when we provide row-level
> security stuff, because it is a security feature.

This issue should be fixed first, not as part of some large-scale patch.

If you have thoughts or ideas about how to address this problem as it
relates to views, I think you would find alot of people willing to
listen and to discuss it.  This must be independent of SELinux,
independent of row-level security, and isn't something based on any of
the patches which have been submitted so far.  None of them that I've
seen resolve this problem in a way that the community is willing to
accept.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--Zudvf+GOtfOZ8wa6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksmQeIACgkQrzgMPqB3kiiSPgCfbIgj5ddhh1MZJSJSRmMOT4v5
cGkAoIz+r35giIMj42e/u8C5kbnAggMA
=0aoK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Zudvf+GOtfOZ8wa6--