Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org

Date: 2024-02-08T02:49:03Z

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 →

Use new overflow-safe integer comparison functions.
- 3b42bdb47169 17.0 landed
Introduce overflow-safe integer comparison functions.
- 6b80394781c8 17.0 landed
Replace calls to pg_qsort() with the qsort() macro.
- 5497daf3aa2a 17.0 landed
Switch over to using our own qsort() all the time, as has been proposed
- 6edd2b4a91bd 8.2.0 cited

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:38 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you could wrap it in a branch-free sign() function so you get
> a narrow answer?
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14579920/fast-sign-of-integer-in-c

Ah, strike that, it is much like the suggested (a > b) - (a < b) but
with extra steps...