Horton

Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com>

View thread
From: Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.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: 2024-02-12T17:09:06Z
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

Attachments

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:57 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 03:44:42PM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 9:53 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >> and I think we should expand on some of the commentary in int.h.
> >> For example, the comment at the top of int.h seems very tailored to the
> >> existing functions and should probably be adjusted.
> >
> >
> > I rewrote the beginning to the following, does that look good?
> >
> >  * int.h
> >  *  Routines to perform signed and unsigned integer arithmetics,
> including
> >  *  comparisons, in an overflow-safe way.
> >
> >
> >
> >> And the "comparison
> >> routines for integers" comment might benefit from some additional
> details
> >> about the purpose and guarantees of the new functions.
> >>
> >
> > I expanded that into the following. WDYT?
> >
> >
> /*------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  * Comparison routines for integers.
> >  *
> >  * These routines are used to implement comparison functions for, e.g.,
> >  * qsort(). They are designed to be efficient and not risk overflows in
> >  * internal computations that could cause strange results, such as
> INT_MIN >
> >  * INT_MAX if you just return "lhs - rhs".
> >
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> LGTM.  I might editorialize a bit before committing, but I think your
> proposed wording illustrates the thrust of the change.
>

Thanks Nathan,

Here are the two fixed patches.

Best wishes,
Mats Kindahl


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