Horton

Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-02-08T20:07:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Use new overflow-safe integer comparison functions.

  2. Introduce overflow-safe integer comparison functions.

  3. Replace calls to pg_qsort() with the qsort() macro.

  4. Switch over to using our own qsort() all the time, as has been proposed

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-02-08 13:44:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Are we okay with using macros that (a) have double evaluation hazards
>> and (b) don't enforce the data types being compared are the same?
>> I think static inlines might be a safer technology.
> 
> +1

Agreed on static inlines.

> I'd put these static inlines into common/int.h. I don't think this is common
> enough to warrant being in c.h. Probably also doesn't hurt to have a not quite
> as generic name as INT_CMP, I'd not be too surprised if that's defined in some
> library.
> 
> 
> I think it's worth following int.h's pattern of including [s]igned/[u]nsigned
> in the name, an efficient implementation for signed might not be the same as
> for unsigned. And if we use static inlines, we need to do so for correct
> semantics anyway.

Seems reasonable to me.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com