MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <585e996c-a5c6-4e61-acc4-d92b7a1458ea@vondra.me>
 <CAGECzQS02M6YPDXemo36tShO-ZYObjqnyTJyVttua1PGyN4xRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPkQKzALOTTBrhj2qDHwVxZQyjF5Xg_P9M=Tn_Dcm3vr=xdTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DBOFQN54M5FX.1XWJE4LKMR8XH@jeltef.nl>
 <CA+TgmoY=NO7_L=UDuoUWj-icABF-7EP=UNUXCFBYpDNFoUZmbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYDdYA1paUKtfHfx-iDdCKrL05m2OwPHz7SQ03t49f2oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOBaU_YTJwo=jevDDKXRjwFUqON2VoWqz=Aw0FedyxbfYSiisw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQS9JqWv+zJR-e-1JMH7GhCnLc4vD9H-uEui8E5Ba9Trpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aLaysb-v12hPW22V@jrouhaud>
 <CA+TgmoawwAoRZH2Hm8w-RP1QOebK9LQ=NzeJWWAz+pYhSQPT0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <aLt9f7u_jUnMgGOe@jrouhaud>
 <CAGECzQR8gnJ92R2joimAfg6VX_VZO2Dy2n2gG-Ozr3zQ7evmSA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGECzQR8gnJ92R2joimAfg6VX_VZO2Dy2n2gG-Ozr3zQ7evmSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 09:01:51 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmoY0zKz-mkXjkRUd-vNT4sp+=j5aJKd6er9WgOH9Q0Qriw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with
 an owned schema
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <me@jeltef.nl>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
 Artem Gavrilov <artem.gavrilov@percona.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>,
 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY0zKz-mkXjkRUd-vNT4sp%2B%3Dj5aJKd6er9WgOH9Q0Qriw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 6, 2025 at 3:35=E2=80=AFAM Jelte Fennema-Nio <me@jeltef.nl> wro=
te:
> I think that sounds like reasonable change to Roberts initial
> proposal: Allowing the schema owner and superusers to add objects in
> the schema, but disallow all other users (even if they have CREATE
> privileges on the schema).

I don't know, I'm not really convinced. I feel like this isn't really
a security issue but more of a could-be-an-unpleasant-surprise issue.
What the patch does (IIRC) is make it so that dropping the extension
just cascade-drops the schema. If the schema contains anything
unrelated to the extension, that's going to remove stuff that it
shouldn't remove. In Julien's examples, the other stuff that gets
introduced into the schema is logically part of the extension even if
it doesn't formally have membership in the extension, but somebody
could equally well just install an unrelated extension in the same
schema and then drop the first extension and, whoops.

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com