Tables INS (x int) and SEL (y int) are owned by dbadm, for another
user SELECT granted on SEL, INSERT - on INS.

Should another user be able to do

insert into ins select y from sel where x = y;

or not ? 
Currently, PG allows this. Backend tries to check 
(in execMain.c:ExecCheckPerms()) is READ access to
table being changed granted to user or not, but this check
seems to be quite stupid:

            qvars = pull_varnos(parseTree->qual);
            tvars = pull_varnos((Node *) parseTree->targetList);
            if (intMember(resultRelation, qvars) ||
                intMember(resultRelation, tvars))

: pull_varnos is very simple and just skips expressions in
qual & target list.

We have to either get rid of this check or change it.

What do you think ?
How "big boys" handle this ?

Vadim

Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:30:08 +0700
"Vadim B. Mikheev" <vadim@sable.krasnoyarsk.su>
permission issue

Vadim wrote:

>
> Tables INS (x int) and SEL (y int) are owned by dbadm, for another
> user SELECT granted on SEL, INSERT - on INS.
>
> Should another user be able to do
>
> insert into ins select y from sel where x = y;
>
> or not ?
> Currently, PG allows this. Backend tries to check
> (in execMain.c:ExecCheckPerms()) is READ access to
> table being changed granted to user or not, but this check
> seems to be quite stupid:
>
>             qvars = pull_varnos(parseTree->qual);
>             tvars = pull_varnos((Node *) parseTree->targetList);
>             if (intMember(resultRelation, qvars) ||
>                 intMember(resultRelation, tvars))
>
> : pull_varnos is very simple and just skips expressions in
> qual & target list.
>
> We have to either get rid of this check or change it.
>
> What do you think ?
> How "big boys" handle this ?
>
> Vadim
>
>

    As  I  wrote  we  must change more on the permission checking
    than currently done. I plan to implement  something  like  an
    effective  user  which is used instead of the current user in
    the checks and switch the effective user on function calls to
    the  owner  of  the  function  (triggers  are  implemented as
    functions and thus also covered). And we need that  effective
    user  too  for the checks in views instead of what we did now
    with skipAcl in the RTE.

    I'll keep the above words in mind when doing  so.  But  first
    let's release 6.3.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:14:27 +0100 (MET)
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] permission issue
> 
> Tables INS (x int) and SEL (y int) are owned by dbadm, for another
> user SELECT granted on SEL, INSERT - on INS.
> 
> Should another user be able to do
> 
> insert into ins select y from sel where x = y;

My guess is that the other user doesn't have SELECT permissions on
INS.y, so this should fail, no?

> 
> or not ? 
> Currently, PG allows this. Backend tries to check 
> (in execMain.c:ExecCheckPerms()) is READ access to
> table being changed granted to user or not, but this check
> seems to be quite stupid:
> 
>             qvars = pull_varnos(parseTree->qual);
>             tvars = pull_varnos((Node *) parseTree->targetList);
>             if (intMember(resultRelation, qvars) ||
>                 intMember(resultRelation, tvars))
> 
> : pull_varnos is very simple and just skips expressions in
> qual & target list.
> 
> We have to either get rid of this check or change it.
> 
> What do you think ?
> How "big boys" handle this ?
> 
> Vadim
> 
> 


-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:06:31 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] permission issue