Horton

Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-02-09T20:08:17Z
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 2024-02-09 14:04:29 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> 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.

+1