From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Burd <greg(at)burd(dot)me>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] bms_prev_member() can read beyond the end of the array of allocated words |
Date: | 2025-08-14 15:14:49 |
Message-ID: | 138396.1755184489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It is valid to pass prevbit as a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD as the
> code does "prevbit--;". Maybe it would be less confusing if it were
> written as:
> * "prevbit" must be less than or equal to "a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD".
> The Assert should be using <= rather than <.
Actually, I don't agree with that. It's true that it wouldn't fail,
but a caller doing that is exhibiting undue intimacy with the innards
of Bitmapsets. The expected usage is that the argument is initially
-1 and after that the result of the previous call (which'll
necessarily be less than a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD). We don't
have any state with which we can verify the chain of calls, but it
seems totally reasonable to me to disallow an outside caller
providing an argument >= a->nwords * BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2025-08-14 15:20:13 | Re: Annoying warning in SerializeClientConnectionInfo |
Previous Message | KAZAR Ayoub | 2025-08-14 14:59:55 | Re: Speed up COPY FROM text/CSV parsing using SIMD |