Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem

On 7 September 2011 14:34, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:

> 2011/9/7 Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>:
> > On 24 August 2011 13:38, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei.Kaigai@emea.nec.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The (2) is new stuff from the revision in commit-fest 1st. It enables to
> >> supply "NOLEAKY" option on CREATE FUNCTION statement, then the function
> is
> >> allowed to distribute across security barrier. Only superuser can set
> this
> >> option.
> >
> > "NOLEAKY" doesn't really sound appropriate as it sounds like pidgin
> English.
> >  Also, it could be read as "Don't allow leaks in this function".  Could
> we
> > instead use something like TRUSTED or something akin to it being allowed
> to
> > do more than safer functions?  It then describes its level of behaviour
> > rather than what it promises not to do.
> >
> Thanks for your comment. I'm not a native English specker, so it is
> helpful.
>
> "TRUSTED" sounds meaningful for me, however, it is confusable with a
> concept
> of "trusted procedure" in label-based MAC. It is not only SELinux,
> Oracle's label
> based security also uses this term to mean a procedure that switches user's
> credential during its execution.
>
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/network.111/b28529/storproc.htm
>
> So, how about "CREDIBLE", instead of "TRUSTED"?
>

I can't say I'm keen on that alternative, but I'm probably not the one to
participate in bike-shedding here, so I'll leave comment to you hackers. :)

-- 
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company