Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Improve RLS documentation with respect to COPY

  1. RLS related docs

    Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2016-05-25T01:04:36Z

    Please see attached two proposed patches for the docs related to RLS:

1) Correction to pg_restore
2) Additional mentions that "COPY FROM" does not allow RLS to be enabled

Comments?

Related question: I believe

  COPY tbl TO ...

is internally converted to

  COPY (select * FROM tbl) TO ...

when RLS is involved. Do we want to document that?

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

  2. Re: RLS related docs

    Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> — 2016-05-26T07:26:41Z

    On 25 May 2016 at 02:04, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> Please see attached two proposed patches for the docs related to RLS:
>
> 1) Correction to pg_restore
> 2) Additional mentions that "COPY FROM" does not allow RLS to be enabled
>
> Comments?
>

The pg_restore change looks good -- that was clearly wrong.

Also, +1 for the new note in pg_dump.

For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
RLS policies required, e.g.:

    If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
    internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
    relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
    supported for tables with row-level security.


> Related question: I believe
>
>   COPY tbl TO ...
>
> is internally converted to
>
>   COPY (select * FROM tbl) TO ...
>
> when RLS is involved. Do we want to document that?
>

I think so, yes, because that makes it clearer what policies will be applied.

Regards,
Dean

  3. Re: RLS related docs

    Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2016-05-30T20:56:37Z

    On 05/26/2016 12:26 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 25 May 2016 at 02:04, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> Please see attached two proposed patches for the docs related to RLS:
>>
>> 1) Correction to pg_restore
>> 2) Additional mentions that "COPY FROM" does not allow RLS to be enabled
>>
>> Comments?
>>
> 
> The pg_restore change looks good -- that was clearly wrong.
> 
> Also, +1 for the new note in pg_dump.

Great, thanks!

> For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
> immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
> required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
> RLS policies required, e.g.:
> 
>     If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
>     internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
>     relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
>     supported for tables with row-level security.

This sounds better than what I had, so I will do it that way.

Thanks,

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

  4. Re: RLS related docs

    Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2016-08-28T20:23:16Z

    On 05/30/2016 01:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 05/26/2016 12:26 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 25 May 2016 at 02:04, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>> Please see attached two proposed patches for the docs related to RLS:
>>>
>>> 1) Correction to pg_restore
>>> 2) Additional mentions that "COPY FROM" does not allow RLS to be enabled
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>
>> The pg_restore change looks good -- that was clearly wrong.
>>
>> Also, +1 for the new note in pg_dump.
> 
> Great, thanks!
> 
>> For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
>> immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
>> required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
>> RLS policies required, e.g.:
>>
>>     If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
>>     internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
>>     relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
>>     supported for tables with row-level security.
> 
> This sounds better than what I had, so I will do it that way.


Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.

Thanks,

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

  5. Re: RLS related docs

    Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> — 2016-08-30T07:05:15Z

    On 28 August 2016 at 21:23, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
> comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.
>

Looking at this again, I think there is something fishy about these
dump/restore flags.

If you do pg_dump --enable-row-security, then row_security is turned
on during the dump and only the user-visible portions of the tables
are dumped. But why does such a dump emit "SET row_security = on;" as
part of the dump? There doesn't appear to be any reason for having
row_security turned on during the restore just because it was on
during the dump. The INSERT policies may well be different from the
SELECT policies, and so this may lead to a dump that cannot be
restored. ISTM that row_security should be off inside the dump, and
only enabled during restore if the user explicitly asks for it,
regardless of what setting was used to produce the dump.

Also, isn't it the case that --enable-row-security during pg_restore
is only relevant when performing a data-only restore (like
--disable-triggers). Otherwise, it looks to me as though the restore
will create the tables, restore the data, and then only at the end
restore the table policies and enable row level security on the
tables. So it looks like the flag would have no effect (and a
COPY-format dump would work fine) for a non-data-only dump.

I never really looked at the RLS dump/restore code. Am I missing something?

Regards,
Dean

  6. Re: RLS related docs

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2016-09-15T18:32:32Z

    On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 August 2016 at 21:23, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
>> comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.
>
> Looking at this again, I think there is something fishy about these
> dump/restore flags.
>
> If you do pg_dump --enable-row-security, then row_security is turned
> on during the dump and only the user-visible portions of the tables
> are dumped. But why does such a dump emit "SET row_security = on;" as
> part of the dump? There doesn't appear to be any reason for having
> row_security turned on during the restore just because it was on
> during the dump. The INSERT policies may well be different from the
> SELECT policies, and so this may lead to a dump that cannot be
> restored. ISTM that row_security should be off inside the dump, and
> only enabled during restore if the user explicitly asks for it,
> regardless of what setting was used to produce the dump.

I think you are right about this.

> Also, isn't it the case that --enable-row-security during pg_restore
> is only relevant when performing a data-only restore (like
> --disable-triggers). Otherwise, it looks to me as though the restore
> will create the tables, restore the data, and then only at the end
> restore the table policies and enable row level security on the
> tables. So it looks like the flag would have no effect (and a
> COPY-format dump would work fine) for a non-data-only dump.

Hmm.  That seems odd.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  7. Re: RLS related docs

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2016-09-15T18:33:31Z

    On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>> For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
>>> immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
>>> required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
>>> RLS policies required, e.g.:
>>>
>>>     If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
>>>     internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
>>>     relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
>>>     supported for tables with row-level security.
>>
>> This sounds better than what I had, so I will do it that way.
>
> Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
> comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.

I don't think this was ever committed, but my comment is that it seems
to be exposing rather more of the implementation than is probably
wise.  Can't we say that SELECT policies will apply rather than saying
that it is internally converted to a SELECT?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  8. Re: RLS related docs

    Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2016-09-15T21:34:48Z

    On 09/15/2016 01:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>>> For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
>>>> immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
>>>> required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
>>>> RLS policies required, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>>     If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
>>>>     internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
>>>>     relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
>>>>     supported for tables with row-level security.
>>>
>>> This sounds better than what I had, so I will do it that way.
>>
>> Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
>> comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.
> 
> I don't think this was ever committed, but my comment is that it seems
> to be exposing rather more of the implementation than is probably
> wise.  Can't we say that SELECT policies will apply rather than saying
> that it is internally converted to a SELECT?

I've not committed it yet because I was going to look into the new info
Dean mentioned first. Seems like your wording is fine, so will make that
change.

Joe


-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

  9. Re: RLS related docs

    Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2016-12-23T02:03:13Z

    On 09/15/2016 02:34 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 09/15/2016 01:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>>>> For COPY, I think perhaps it would be more logical to put the new note
>>>>> immediately after the third note which describes the privileges
>>>>> required, since it's kind of related, and then we can talk about the
>>>>> RLS policies required, e.g.:
>>>>>
>>>>>     If row-level security is enabled for the table, COPY table TO is
>>>>>     internally converted to COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO, and the
>>>>>     relevant security policies are applied. Currently, COPY FROM is not
>>>>>     supported for tables with row-level security.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds better than what I had, so I will do it that way.
>>>
>>> Apologies for the delay, but new patch attached. Assuming no more
>>> comments, will commit this, backpatched to 9.5, in a day or two.
>>
>> I don't think this was ever committed, but my comment is that it seems
>> to be exposing rather more of the implementation than is probably
>> wise.  Can't we say that SELECT policies will apply rather than saying
>> that it is internally converted to a SELECT?

Committed that way, backpatched to 9.5.

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development