From: "n.pettik" <korablev@tarantool.org> To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: Kirill Yukhin <kyukhin@tarantool.org> Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2] sql: check read access while executing SQL query Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:50:18 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <BCB4F936-B1C3-446A-944E-2F336D4C5364@tarantool.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c6cdd8e13b08d9df4edad9f2d7a3bb2784b4366d.1534920564.git.kyukhin@tarantool.org> > On 22 Aug 2018, at 09:53, Kirill Yukhin <kyukhin@tarantool.org> wrote: > > Since SQL front-end is not using box API anymore, Basically, AFAIK selects have never checked access privileges. Box API was used only to handle DML routine. > no checkes for read access are performed by VDBE engine. > Fix this by introducing dedicated opcode which is executed > to perform read access check. Please, mention that new opcode is generated for EACH OP_OpenWrite/Read appearance in VDBE program. > Note, that there's is no need to perform DML/DDL checkes as > they're performed by Tarantool's core. > > diff --git a/src/box/sql/build.c b/src/box/sql/build.c > index da7668b..c25715c 100644 > --- a/src/box/sql/build.c > +++ b/src/box/sql/build.c > @@ -55,6 +55,38 @@ > #include "box/tuple_format.h" > #include "box/coll_id_cache.h" > > +/** > + * Emit access control checks. It should be noted that only > + * checks for read need to be performed. DML/DDL requestes are > + * checked for access by Tarantool's core. > + * > + * @param v Byte-code structure being translated. > + * @retval true If a new opcode was emitted. > + */ > +static bool > +sql_emit_access_checks(struct Vdbe *v) AFAIR we decided to use vdbe_emit_ prefix for functions generating VDBE code. Moreover, according to codestyle: ‘'' If the name of a function is an action or an imperative command, the function should return an error-code integer. If the name is a predicate, the function should return a "succeeded" boolean. ‘’’ Name of your function doesn’t seem to be predicate… I don't insist on this rule, tho (but smb else might). > +{ > + bool is_code_emitted = false; > + for(int i = 0; i < v->nOp; ++i) { > + uint8_t op = v->aOp[i].opcode; > + /* FIXME: when write iterators will be removed, Nitpicking: comment should be like: /* * TEXT STARTS HERE */ > + * remove checks for OP_OpenWrite. Note, that > + * DML routines don't need access checks. > + * See gh-3182. Nitpicking: AFAIR references to issues are not desirable in source code. > + */ > + if (op == OP_OpenRead || op == OP_OpenWrite) { > + sqlite3VdbeAddOp4(v, OP_AccessCheck, > + PRIV_R, > + 0, > + 0, Smth wrong with indentation. > + (void *)v->aOp[i].p4.space, > + P4_SPACEPTR); > + is_code_emitted = true; Why do we need to generate these opcodes at the end of program? Please, leave explanation comment. Moreover, you emit OP_AccessCheck on each opcode, even if we have already checked access on this space. It may make sense in case you emit OP_AccessCheck opcode right before cursor opening, but in the beginning of VDBE execution it is wasting execution time. E.g.: SQL-trace: select * from t1, t1 as t2 101> 13 AccessCheck 1 0 0 space<name=T1> 00 Check 1 access rights for space<name=T1>. 101> 14 AccessCheck 1 0 0 space<name=T1> 00 Check 1 access rights for space<name=T1>. 101> 15 Goto 0 1 0 00 101> 1 OpenWrite 0 0 0 space<name=T1> 00 index id = 0, space ptr = space<name=T1>; T1 101> 2 OpenWrite 1 0 0 space<name=T1> 00 index id = 0, space ptr = space<name=T1>; T1 101> 3 Explain 0 0 0 SCAN TABLE T1 00 101> 4 Rewind 0 12 0 00 101> 12 Halt One AccessCheck is definitely redundant. > + } > + } > + return is_code_emitted; > +} > + > void > sql_finish_coding(struct Parse *parse_context) > { > @@ -76,6 +108,7 @@ sql_finish_coding(struct Parse *parse_context) > int last_instruction = v->nOp; > if (parse_context->initiateTTrans) > sqlite3VdbeAddOp0(v, OP_TTransaction); > + bool is_acc_emitted = sql_emit_access_checks(v); > if (parse_context->pConstExpr != NULL) { > assert(sqlite3VdbeGetOp(v, 0)->opcode == OP_Init); > /* > @@ -101,7 +134,8 @@ sql_finish_coding(struct Parse *parse_context) > * vdbe_end: OP_Goto 0 1 ... > */ > if (parse_context->initiateTTrans || > - parse_context->pConstExpr != NULL) { > + parse_context->pConstExpr != NULL || > + is_acc_emitted) { > sqlite3VdbeChangeP2(v, 0, last_instruction); > sqlite3VdbeGoto(v, 1); > } > diff --git a/src/box/sql/vdbe.c b/src/box/sql/vdbe.c > index dc3f5c0..ec780a8 100644 > --- a/src/box/sql/vdbe.c > +++ b/src/box/sql/vdbe.c > @@ -5286,6 +5286,21 @@ case OP_IncMaxid: { > break; > } > > +/* Opcode: AccessCheck P1 * * P4 * > + * Synopsis: Check P1 access rights for P4. > + * > + * Check access rights for space pointed by register P1. *Pointer by register P4* > + * Access type is determined by P1. > + */ > +case OP_AccessCheck: { > + struct space *space = (struct space *)pOp->p4.space; > + if (access_check_space(space, pOp->p1) != 0) { > + rc = SQL_TARANTOOL_ERROR; > + goto abort_due_to_error; > + } > + break; > +} > + > > diff --git a/test/sql/gh-2362-select-access-rights.test.lua b/test/sql/gh-2362-select-access-rights.test.lua > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..d5d0a8e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/test/sql/gh-2362-select-access-rights.test.lua > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ > +test_run = require('test_run').new() > +engine = test_run:get_cfg('engine') > +nb = require('net.box') > + > +box.sql.execute("PRAGMA sql_default_engine='"..engine.."'") > +box.sql.execute("CREATE TABLE te37 (s1 INT PRIMARY KEY);") > +box.sql.execute("INSERT INTO te37 VALUES (1);") > + > +box.schema.user.grant('guest','read,write,execute','universe’) Why do you give all privileges? To make this test be fair, you should give only ‘read’ access. I would also add tests with join involving several tables to make sure that read access is tested for all spaces. Next question is about SELECT from views: user gives view read privilege, but will get error when try to select from that view. The last one - what should we do with FK: to check constraint violations we must implicitly open read cursor on parent space. Hence, user again would get ‘access denied’ error if he tried to insert in child space. I propose to investiagate how these things are handled in other DBs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-24 9:50 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-08-22 6:53 [tarantool-patches] " Kirill Yukhin 2018-08-24 9:50 ` n.pettik [this message] 2018-08-24 11:21 ` [tarantool-patches] " Kirill Yukhin
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=BCB4F936-B1C3-446A-944E-2F336D4C5364@tarantool.org \ --to=korablev@tarantool.org \ --cc=kyukhin@tarantool.org \ --cc=tarantool-patches@freelists.org \ --subject='[tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2] sql: check read access while executing SQL query' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox