public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Postgres hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 10:09:20 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

On 2023-07-05 14:10:42 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:40:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Hmm, shouldn't we disallow moving the function to another schema, if the
> >> function's schema was originally determined at extension creation time?
> >> I'm not sure we really want to allow moving objects of an extension to a
> >> different schema.
> > 
> > Why not?  I do not believe that an extension's objects are required
> > to all be in the same schema.
> 
> Yes, I don't see what we would gain by putting restrictions regarding
> which schema an object is located in, depending on which schema an
> extension uses.

Well, it adds an exploitation opportunity. If other functions in the extension
reference the original location (explicitly or via search_path), somebody else
can create a function there, which might be called from a more privileged
context. Obviously permissions limit the likelihood of this being a real
issue.

I also don't think pg_dump will dump the changed schema, which means a
dump/restore leads to a different schema - IMO something to avoid.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

view thread (4+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox