[refpolicy] [PATCH] New database object classes

KaiGai Kohei kaigai at kaigai.gr.jp
Fri Dec 10 06:59:01 CST 2010


(2010/12/10 21:18), Andy Warner wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/10/2010 10:49 AM, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> The attached patch adds a few database object classes, as follows:
>>
>> * db_schema
>> ------------
>> A schema object performs as a namespace in database; similar to
>> directories in filesystem.
>> It seems some of (but not all) database objects are stored within
>> a certain schema logically. We can qualify these objects using
>> schema name. For example, a table: "my_tbl" within a schema: "my_scm"
>> is identified by "my_scm.my_tbl". This table is completely different
>> from "your_scm.my_tbl" that it a table within a schema: "your_scm".
>> Its characteristics is similar to a directory in filesystem, so
>> it has similar permissions.
>> The 'search' controls to resolve object name within a schema.
>> The 'add_name' and 'remove_name' controls to add/remove an object
>> to/from a schema.
>> See also,
>>    http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-createschema.html
>>
>> In the past discussion, a rubix folks concerned about no object
>> class definition for schema and catalog which is an upper level
>> namespace. Since I'm not certain whether we have a disadvantage
>> when 'db_schema' class is applied on catalog class, I don't add
>> this definition yet.
> 
>  From my point of view, as a rubix folk, I see no disadvantage in using
> the db_schema class for catalogs. As we are now overloading the dir object
> class, using the db_schema for both schemata and catalogs is an improvement.
> For us in the foreseeable future, there is no functional distinction.
> 
> I do think that the SQL spec does allow things to be associated with
> a named schema that may not be associated with a catalog. For instance,
> a character set. But, don't quote me on that:-)
> 
If we would need a special permission to set a character set, we may
provide individual object classes. But it seems to me 'setattr' permission
covers this case, at least.

> Forgive me for my ignorance, but when a patch like this is submitted to
> the refpolicy, will it eventually make it into Fedora and/or RHEL 6?
> 
Next to the getting merged, the reference policy (with the patch) will be
integrated to Fedora. However, I don't think RHEL6 applies new features
any more from now, except for bug fixes. It was feature frozen long before.

Thanks,

>> Default security context of 'db_table' and 'db_procedure' classes
>> get being computed using type_transition with 'db_schema' class,
>> instead of 'db_database' class. It reflects logical hierarchy of
>> database object more correctly.
>>
>>
>> * db_view
>> ----------
>> A view object performs as a virtual table. We can run SELECT
>> statement on views, although it has no physical entities.
>> The definition of views are expanded in run-time, so it allows
>> us to describe complex queries with keeping readability.
>> This object class uniquely provides 'expand' permission that
>> controls whether user can expand this view, or not.
>> The default security context shall be computed by type transition
>> rule with a schema object that owning the view.
>>
>> See also,
>>    http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-createview.html
>>
>>
>> * db_sequence
>> --------------
>> A sequence object is a sequential number generator.
>> This object class uniquely provides 'get_value', 'next_value' and
>> 'set_value' permissions. The 'get_value' controls to reference the
>> sequence object. The 'next_value' controls to fetch and increment
>> the value of sequence object. The 'set_value' controls to set
>> an arbitrary value.
>> The default security context shall be computed by type transition
>> rule with a schema object that owning the sequence.
>>
>> See also,
>>    http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-createsequence.html
>>
>>
>> * db_language
>> --------------
>> A language object is an installed engine to execute procedures.
>> PostgreSQL supports to define SQL procedures using regular script
>> languages; such as Perl, Tcl, not only SQL or binary modules.
>> In addition, v9.0 or later supports DO statement. It allows us to
>> execute a script statement on server side without defining a SQL
>> procedure. It requires to control whether user can execute DO
>> statement on this language, or not.
>> This object class uniquely provides 'implement' and 'execute'
>> permissions. The 'implement' controls whether a procedure can
>> be implemented with this language, or not. So, it takes security
>> context of the procedure as subject. The 'execute' controls to
>> execute code block using DO statement.
>> The default security context shall be computed by type transition
>> rule with a database object, because it is not owned by a certain
>> schema.
>>
>> In the default policy, we provide two types: 'sepgsql_lang_t' and
>> 'sepgsql_safe_lang_t' that allows unpriv users to execute DO
>> statement. The default is 'sepgsql_leng_t'.
>> We assume newly installed language may be harm, so DBA has to relabel
>> it explicitly, if he want user defined procedures using the language.
>>
>> See also,
>>    http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-createlanguage.html
>>    http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-do.html
>>
>> P.S)
>> I found a bug in MCS. It didn't constraint 'relabelfrom' permission
>> of 'db_procedure' class. IIRC, I fixed it before, but it might be
>> only MLS side. Sorry.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> refpolicy mailing list
>> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com
>> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> refpolicy mailing list
> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com
> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy


-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai at kaigai.gr.jp>


More information about the refpolicy mailing list