Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F018632C45 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:37:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22426-01 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:37:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail1.asahi-net.or.jp (mail1.asahi-net.or.jp [202.224.39.197]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE9E632849 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:37:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (j069218.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [61.213.69.218]) by mail1.asahi-net.or.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15238FAF9; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:37:34 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4AD94A0E.4010408@kaigai.gr.jp> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:37:34 +0900 From: KaiGai Kohei User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Stark CC: KaiGai Kohei , Tom Lane , Stephen Frost , robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363) References: <4AC5A14F.6050306@ak.jp.nec.com> <20091012024604.GW17756@tamriel.snowman.net> <4AD54082.9050001@ak.jp.nec.com> <10495.1255627322@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4AD7CCDD.1070402@ak.jp.nec.com> <407d949e0910160945x6bb99198xb3c23b9554669361@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <407d949e0910160945x6bb99198xb3c23b9554669361@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200910/981 X-Sequence-Number: 147793 Greg Stark wrote: > 2009/10/16 KaiGai Kohei : >> . In addition, I already tried to put SE-PG hooks >> within pg_xxx_aclchecks() in this CF, but it was failed due to the >> differences in the security models. > > I thought the last discussion ended with a pretty strong conclusion > that we didn't want differences in the security models. It is not a fact. Because the SE-PG patch is a bit large to review, I got a suggestion to implement a part of permissions checks which can be invoked from the pg_xxx_aclcheck() without any breaks for SELinux's security model, at the first step. In other word, I tried to implement only union part of the security models. > The first step is to add hooks which don't change the security model > at all, just allow people to control the existing checks from their SE > configuration. Only as a second step we would look into making > incremental changes to the postgres security model to add support for > privileges SE users might expect to find, eventually possibly > including per-row permissions. I already did it on the first CF... However, most of permission checks had gone at the first step. It was commented it is same as checks nothing. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei