pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
Cc: ktm@rice.edu <ktm@rice.edu>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PgHacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [v9.4] row level security
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 16:38:51 +0300
Message-ID: <5223436B.1070406@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5220F928.7040503@agliodbs.com>
References: <CADyhKSWkHrPqbRsFK0LjPMOOTsbKGWOuN75GqYJrxCDO3CKWtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfdsgMrBnzu9um48O6kwY=_pRFuRrBrHqnA03fCAo8x3-Gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADyhKSUpcYKNm3rQRwCFqkTZfO3_ZrqYKjAqDxKeA6WeLezSbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130829142321.GA30496@aart.rice.edu>
	<CADyhKSUD7qdQeTndZ6mDpp05V6MnRBzQO1FmYBq1+Zp37oyRrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<WM!685df689dd4d8f8c5349d5ef7b8e285db1e99ea32d22ab5d35f3981c29eac19dbd725c9b5e0227def9d782de274d1354!@asav-3.01.com>
	<521F7DFB.8060602@agliodbs.com>
	<CADyhKSW_o2nVWFytdTY84DUXZSuZkD_EtY2d8wAjR18UruOXYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<WM!fb94ecb91cd381e69d8e4773d3810f48e4e0ef000525cc806c4ee509f215ce1a39c8c2a1c3ffde72ba2ddb1a07ebcdc9!@asav-2.01.com>
	<5220D832.7090104@agliodbs.com>
	<20130830192729.GO2706@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<16798.1377891794@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<WM!20618a88b943d2d51dde90beb5cb85eea4bacc1ee65b4bb73872fafa086f76aee8b9caf4e1c1a7e5865845cf76661b1b!@asav-3.01.com>
	<5220F928.7040503@agliodbs.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 30.08.2013 22:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Right now, the primary tool for doing row filtering for MTA is Veil,
> which has numerous and well-known limitations.  If RLS has fewer
> limitations, or is easier to deploy, maintain, and/or understand, then
> it's a valuable feature for that user base, even if it doesn't address
> the covert channels we've brought up at all.
>
> That is, if RLS is your*second*  level of defense, instead of your
> primary defense, covert channels are not a make-or-break issue. It just
> has to be better than what we had before.
>
> Note that I have NOT done an evaluation of Veil vs. RLS for MTA at this
> point.  I'm hoping someone else will ;-)

I'd also like to hear how Veil differs from RLS. From what I've 
understood this far, they are the same in terms of what you can and 
cannot do.

To phrase it differently: We already have RLS. It's shipped as an 
extension called Veil. Now please explain what's wrong with that 
statement, if anything.

- Heikki


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (165+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <5223436B.1070406@vmware.com>
Permalink:  ../5223436B.1070406@vmware.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5223436B.1070406@vmware.com

 · 

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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: hlinnakangas@vmware.com, josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp, ktm@rice.edu, aekorotkov@gmail.com, obartunov@gmail.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: [v9.4] row level security
  In-Reply-To: <5223436B.1070406@vmware.com>

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

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