Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Oops in fe-auth.c

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oops in fe-auth.c
Date: 2007-07-23 17:22:50
Message-ID: 46A4E3EA.70408@hagander.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Actually coding up a patch for that was just a bunch of simple
>> search/replace ops. Attached is one that appears to work fine for me.
> 
>> Was there any reason why this wasn't done before, or just nobody had the
>> time? If there was a reason, please let me know what it was :-)
> 
> AFAIR nobody got round to it because it hadn't seemed important.

Ok. I actually managed to provoke a GSSAPI error that got cut off at 256
characters in testing. Which is kind of amazing in itself, but...


>> (Question about backpatch remains)
> 
> I'd vote against backpatching.  The appropriate fix for back branches
> is probably just to reduce the strncpy and snprintf arguments to
> INITIAL_EXPBUFFER_SIZE, ie, make the code do what that header comment
> says it should do.

Right. See other mail as well.


> Style point: in the places where you've chosen to pass the whole PGconn,
> you should remove any separate arguments that are actually just PGconn
> fields; eg for pg_krb5_sendauth it looks like sock and servicename are
> now redundant.  Otherwise there are risks of programmer confusion, and
> maybe even wrong code generation, due to aliasing.
> 
> It would be more consistent to pass PGconn around to all of these
> functions instead of trying to have them have just partial views of it,
> but I dunno if you want to engage in purely cosmetic changes.

I'll go ahead and do that now, while I'm whacking the code around.

//Magnus


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-07-23 17:26:32
Subject: Re: Oops in fe-auth.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-07-23 17:17:51
Subject: Re: Oops in fe-auth.c

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-07-23 17:26:32
Subject: Re: Oops in fe-auth.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-07-23 17:17:51
Subject: Re: Oops in fe-auth.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group