Re: [v9.4] row level security - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 11/05/2013 09:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I haven't studied this patch in detail, but I see why there's some
> unhappiness about that code: it's an RLS-specific kluge.  Just
> shooting from the hip here, maybe we should attack the problem of
> making security-barrier views updatable first, as a separate patch.

That's the approach I've been considering. There are a few wrinkles with
it, though:

(a) Updatable views are implemented in the rewriter, not the planner.
The rewriter is not re-run when plans are invalidated or when the
session authorization changes, etc. This means that we can't simply omit
the RLS predicate for superuser because the same rewritten parse tree
might get used for both superuser and non-superuser queries.

Options:

* Store the before-rewrite parse tree when RLS is discovered on one of
the rels in the tree. Re-run the rewriter when re-planning. Ensure a
change in current user always invalidates plans.

* Declare that it's not legal to run a query originally parsed and
rewritten as superuser as a non-superuser or vice versa. This would
cause a great deal of pain with PL/PgSQL.

* Always add the RLS predicate and solve the problem of reliably
short-circuiting the user-supplied predicate for RLS-exempt users.  We'd
need a way to allow direct (not query-based) COPY TO for tables with RLS
applied, preventing the rewriting of direct table access into subqueries
for COPY, but since we never save plans for COPY that may be fine.

* ... ?


(b) Inheritance is a problem when RLS is done in the rewriter. As I
understood it from Kohei KaiGai's description to me earlier, there was a
strong preference on -hackers to enforce RLS predicates for child and
parent tables completely independently. That's how RLS currently works,
but it might be hard to get the same effect when applying RLS in the
rewriter. We'd need to solve that, or redefine RLS's behaviour so that
the predicate on a parent table applies to any child tables too.
Personally I'd prefer the latter.

(c) RLS might interact differently with rules declared on tables if
implemented in the rewriter, so some investigation into that would be
needed.

> I
> would think that if we make that work, this will also work without,
> hopefully, any special hackery.  And we'd get a separate,
> independently useful feature out of it, too.

I tend to agree. I'm just a bit concerned about dealing with the issues
around RLS-exempt operations and users.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services