Horton

Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-02-09T20:04:29Z
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 Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32".  But I agree that
>> assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad.  I think we need
>> a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().
> 
> Do we want to have something similar for "int" as well? It seems to be
> quite common and even though it usually is an int32, it does not have to be.

I don't think we need separate functions for int and int32.  As Tom noted,
we assume they are the same.

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