Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mats Kindahl <mats(at)timescale(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Date: 2024-02-09 20:08:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2024-02-09 14:04:29 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32". But I agree that
> >> assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad. I think we need
> >> a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().
> >
> > Do we want to have something similar for "int" as well? It seems to be
> > quite common and even though it usually is an int32, it does not have to be.
> I don't think we need separate functions for int and int32. As Tom noted,
> we assume they are the same.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-02-09 20:08:28 Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Previous Message Pavel Luzanov 2024-02-09 20:08:11 Re: Add semi-join pushdown to postgres_fdw