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: 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: 2024-02-12T23:04:23Z
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 Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 01:31:30PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> One thing that's worth checking is if this ends up with *worse* code when the
> comparators are inlined. I think none of the changed comparators will end up
> getting used with an inlined sort, but ...

Yeah, AFAICT the only inlined sorts are in tuplesort.c and bufmgr.c, and
the patches don't touch those files.

> The reason we could end up with worse code is that when inlining the
> comparisons would make less sense for the compiler. Consider e.g.
> 	return DO_COMPARE(a, b) < 0 ?
> 		(DO_COMPARE(b, c) < 0 ? b : (DO_COMPARE(a, c) < 0 ? c : a))
> 		: (DO_COMPARE(b, c) > 0 ? b : (DO_COMPARE(a, c) < 0 ? a : c));
> 
> With a naive implementation the compiler will understand it only cares about
> a < b, not about the other possibilities. I'm not sure that's still true with
> the more complicated optimized version.

You aren't kidding [0].  Besides perhaps adding a comment in
sort_template.h, is there anything else you think we should do about this
now?

[0] https://godbolt.org/z/bbTqK54zK

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