On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 13:31, Greg Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 05:24 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> How about passing a parameter to pg_signal_backend? Making
>> pg_signal_backend(int pid, int sig, bool allow_samerole)?
>>
>
>
> That works, got rid of the parts I didn't like and allowed some useful minor
> restructuring. I also made the HINT better and match style guidelines:
>
> gsmith=> select pg_terminate_backend(21205);
>
> ERROR: must be superuser to terminate other server processes
> HINT: You can cancel your own processes with pg_cancel_backend().
> gsmith=> select pg_cancel_backend(21205);
> pg_cancel_backend
> -------------------
> t
>
> New rev attached and pushed to
> https://github.com/greg2ndQuadrant/postgres/tree/cancel-backend (which is
> *not* the same branch as I used last time; don't ask why, long story)
>
> I considered some additional ways to restructure the checks that could
> remove a further line or two from the logic here, but they all made the
> result seem less readable to me. And this is not a high performance code
> path. I may have gone a bit too far with the comment additions though, so
> feel free to trim that back. It kept feeling weird to me that none of the
> individual signaling functions had their own intro comments. I added all
> those.
>
> I also wrote up a commentary on the PID wraparound race condition
> possibility Josh brought up. Some research shows that pid assignment on
> some systems is made more secure by assigning new ones randomly. That seems
> like it would make it possible to have a pid get reused much faster than on
> the usual sort of system that does sequential assignment and wraparound. A
> reuse collision still seems extremely unlikely though. With the new
> comments, at least a future someone who speculates on this will know how
> much thinking went into the current implementation: enough to notice, not
> enough to see anything worth doing about it. Maybe that's just wasted lines
> of text?
>
> With so little grief on the last round, I'm going to guess this one will
> just get picked up by Magnus to commit next. Marking accordingly and moved
> to the current CommitFest.
I was going to, but I noticed a few things:
* I restructured the if statements, because I had a hard time
following the comments around that ;) I find this one easier - but I'm
happy to change back if you think your version was more readable.
* The error message in pg_signal_backend breaks the abstraction,
because it specifically talks about terminating the other backend -
when it's not supposed to know about that in that function. I think we
either need to get rid of the hint completely, or we need to find a
way to issue it from the caller. Or pass it as a parameter. It's fine
for now since we only have two signals, but we might have more in the
future..
* I gave it a run of pgindent ;)
In the attached updated patch I've just removed the HINT and changed
the reference from"terminate" to "signal". But I'd like your input
onthat before I commit :-)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
index e7f7fe0..cf77586 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
@@ -14244,8 +14244,8 @@ SELECT set_config('log_statement_stats', 'off', false);
<para>
The functions shown in <xref
linkend="functions-admin-signal-table"> send control signals to
- other server processes. Use of these functions is restricted
- to superusers.
+ other server processes. Use of these functions is usually restricted
+ to superusers, with noted exceptions.
</para>
<table id="functions-admin-signal-table">
@@ -14262,7 +14262,10 @@ SELECT set_config('log_statement_stats', 'off', false);
<literal><function>pg_cancel_backend(<parameter>pid</parameter> <type>int</>)</function></literal>
</entry>
<entry><type>boolean</type></entry>
- <entry>Cancel a backend's current query</entry>
+ <entry>Cancel a backend's current query. You can execute this against
+ another backend that has exactly the same role as the user calling the
+ function. In all other cases, you must be a superuser.
+ </entry>
</row>
<row>
<entry>
@@ -14304,6 +14307,10 @@ SELECT set_config('log_statement_stats', 'off', false);
<command>postgres</command> processes on the server (using
<application>ps</> on Unix or the <application>Task
Manager</> on <productname>Windows</>).
+ For the less restrictive <function>pg_cancel_backend</>, the role of an
+ active backend can be found from
+ the <structfield>usename</structfield> column of the
+ <structname>pg_stat_activity</structname> view.
</para>
<para>
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/misc.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/misc.c
index 7a2e0c8..d7f2435 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/adt/misc.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/adt/misc.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
#include "postmaster/syslogger.h"
#include "storage/fd.h"
#include "storage/pmsignal.h"
+#include "storage/proc.h"
#include "storage/procarray.h"
#include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
#include "utils/builtins.h"
@@ -70,15 +71,41 @@ current_query(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
}
/*
- * Functions to send signals to other backends.
+ * Send a signal to another backend
*/
static bool
-pg_signal_backend(int pid, int sig)
+pg_signal_backend(int pid, int sig, bool allow_same_role)
{
+ PGPROC *proc;
+
if (!superuser())
- ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
- (errmsg("must be superuser to signal other server processes"))));
+ {
+ if (allow_same_role)
+ {
+ /*
+ * When same role permission is allowed, check for matching roles.
+ * Trust that BackendPidGetProc will return NULL if the pid isn't
+ * valid, even though the check for whether it's a backend process
+ * is below. The IsBackendPid check can't be relied on as
+ * definitive even if it was first. The process might end between
+ * successive checks regardless of their order. There's no way to
+ * acquire a lock on an arbitrary process to prevent that. But
+ * since so far all the callers of this mechanism involve some
+ * request for ending the process anyway, that it might end on its
+ * own first is not a problem.
+ */
+ proc = BackendPidGetProc(pid);
+
+ if (proc == NULL || proc->roleId != GetUserId())
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
+ (errmsg("must be superuser or have the same role to signal other server processes"))));
+ }
+ else
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
+ errmsg("must be superuser to signal other server processes")));
+ }
if (!IsBackendPid(pid))
{
@@ -91,6 +118,15 @@ pg_signal_backend(int pid, int sig)
return false;
}
+ /*
+ * Can the process we just validated above end, followed by the pid being
+ * recycled for a new process, before reaching here? Then we'd be trying
+ * to kill the wrong thing. Seems near impossible when sequential pid
+ * assignment and wraparound is used. Perhaps it could happen on a system
+ * where pid re-use is randomized. That race condition possibility seems
+ * too unlikely to worry about.
+ */
+
/* If we have setsid(), signal the backend's whole process group */
#ifdef HAVE_SETSID
if (kill(-pid, sig))
@@ -106,18 +142,28 @@ pg_signal_backend(int pid, int sig)
return true;
}
+/*
+ * Signal to cancel a backend process. This is allowed if you are superuser or
+ * have the same role as the process being canceled.
+ */
Datum
pg_cancel_backend(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- PG_RETURN_BOOL(pg_signal_backend(PG_GETARG_INT32(0), SIGINT));
+ PG_RETURN_BOOL(pg_signal_backend(PG_GETARG_INT32(0), SIGINT, true));
}
+/*
+ * Signal to terminate a backend process. Only allowed by superuser.
+ */
Datum
pg_terminate_backend(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- PG_RETURN_BOOL(pg_signal_backend(PG_GETARG_INT32(0), SIGTERM));
+ PG_RETURN_BOOL(pg_signal_backend(PG_GETARG_INT32(0), SIGTERM, false));
}
+/*
+ * Signal to reload the database configuration
+ */
Datum
pg_reload_conf(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
