MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171085360143.2046436.7217841141682511557.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <CAPpHfdtYgQ8PUZMS043c8USeKcKh5isrAW0QQKMAxQacX-+nuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <768cbb42-d3f8-45de-89ad-72861f078dc2@postgrespro.ru> <CAPpHfdu+iX5TP65Cyn6vUe8JKGtLmMA=sKKKgE7tB6G6Qk=18Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALT9ZEHhVt-i1vGL_eCfNqAisTiC6VaM6U-fxP3kD306uPLEcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsEtAWhpcPEaUky+gO20=rz0P03OskAS0c8teuTtHP9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALT9ZEGTFdwrP+jO1tKxHHeGPM-enMm734MP0wCwJTQZDembYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdst=eqJ8-n=yhSk=5Xk2QHLF90HWryHWgARuityB3=b7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobHYix=Nn8D4RUHa6fhUVPR88KGAMq1pBfnGfOfEjRixA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdt_Apbzjx-q2moST3VyNq9Shx8ByGxTF-aqBs3Gaf_n-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY0=bT_xBP8csR=MFE=FxGE2n2-me2-31jBOgEcLvW7ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdtp3_H_Rp1ubVYGUnnF0fXbam7+OOG_EMnWos1x2a_3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <859476bf-3cb0-455e-b093-b8ab5ef17f0e@postgrespro.ru> <CA+TgmoZux8hzQ0=1-Rvigm9VuojW0aHiGSzL+G_g43qyrLGiSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f56c654f-f152-4dc8-b221-4d4484bed612@postgrespro.ru>
In-Reply-To: <f56c654f-f152-4dc8-b221-4d4484bed612@postgrespro.ru>
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 08:36:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPpHfdtXDuBaHscJn-wada6Kaf3fxmS4k-1TTVhpS+Kx=uveyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
To: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdtXDuBaHscJn-wada6Kaf3fxmS4k-1TTVhpS%2BKx%3Duveyw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi!

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 11:43=E2=80=AFAM Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.=
ru> wrote:
> I plan to prepare fixes for issues from email [1] as separate commits
> (for better code readability). Attachment in this email is a variant of
> fix for the issue:
>
>  > 1. Function createPartitionTable() should be rewritten using
>  > partitioned table OID (not name) and without using ProcessUtility().
>
> Patch "Refactor createPartitionTable to remove ProcessUtility call"
> contains code changes + test (see file
> v33-0003-Refactor-createPartitionTable-to-remove-ProcessU.patch).
>
> But I'm not sure that refactoring createPartitionTable is the best
> solution. PostgreSQL code has issue CVE-2014-0062 (commit 5f17304) - see
> relation_openrv() call in expandTableLikeClause() function [2] (opening
> relation by name after we got relation Oid).
> Example for reproduce relation_openrv() call:
>
> CREATE TABLE t (b bigint, i int DEFAULT 100);
> CREATE TABLE t1 (LIKE t_bigint INCLUDING ALL);
>
> Commit 04158e7fa3 [3] (by Alexander Korotkov) might be a good fix for
> this issue. But if we keep commit 04158e7fa3, do we need to refactor the
> createPartitionTable function (for removing ProcessUtility)?
> Perhaps the existing code
> 1) v33-0002-Implement-ALTER-TABLE-.-SPLIT-PARTITION-.-comman.patch
> 2) v33-0003-Refactor-createPartitionTable-to-remove-ProcessU.patch +
> with patch 04158e7fa3 will look better.
>
>
> I would be very grateful for comments and suggestions.

Thank you for continuing your work on the subject.  The patches
currently doesn't apply cleanly.  Please, rebase.

I think getting away from expandTableLikeClause() is the right
direction to resolve the security problems.  That looks great, it
finally not as complex as I thought.  I think the code requires some
polishing: you need to revise the comments given its not part of LIKE
clause handling anymore.

I see fixes for the issues mentioned in [1] and [2] are still not
implemented.  Do you plan to do this in this release cycle?

Links.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY0%3DbT_xBP8csR%3DMFE%3DF=
xGE2n2-me2-31jBOgEcLvW7ug%40mail.gmail.com
2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/859476bf-3cb0-455e-b093-b8ab5ef17f=
0e%40postgrespro.ru

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase