Skip to content

Conversation

@MarkYu98
Copy link
Contributor

@MarkYu98 MarkYu98 commented Apr 24, 2019

The original semantic of OR is defined as: the request pass either of the two has_permission() check, and pass either of the two has_object_permission() check, which could lead to situations that a request passes has_permission() but fails on has_object_permission() of Permission Class A, fails has_permission() but passes has_object_permission() of Permission Class B, passes the OR permission check. This should not be the desired permission check semantic in applications, because such a request should fail on either Permission Class (on Django object permission) alone, but passes the OR or the two.

My code fix this by changing the semantic so that the request has to pass either class's has_permission() and has_object_permission() to get the Django object permission of the OR check.

Previous related issue: #6402

The original semantic of OR is defined as: the request pass either of the two has_permission() check, and pass either of the two has_object_permission() check, which could lead to situations that a request passes has_permission() but fails on has_object_permission() of Permission Class A, fails has_permission() but passes has_object_permission() of Permission Class B, passes the OR permission check. This should not be the desired permission check semantic in applications, because such a request should fail on either Permission Class (on Django object permission) alone, but passes the OR or the two.

My code fix this by changing the semantic so that the request has to pass either class's has_permission() and has_object_permission() to get the Django object permission of the OR check.
@lovelydinosaur
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, great - looks like the test_object_or_lazyness test case would also need to be updated.

@lovelydinosaur
Copy link
Contributor

Bumped this to run the test suite.

@lovelydinosaur lovelydinosaur modified the milestones: 3.13 Release, 3.14 Jan 10, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 16, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Apr 16, 2022
@lovelydinosaur
Copy link
Contributor

@Stale - Bump this please.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants