Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mats Kindahl <mats(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: 2024-02-13 18:10:44
Message-ID: 20240213181044.GA13935@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:43:18AM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> Maybe we should change to use the original version equivalent to the inline
> function above since that works better with surrounding code?

I don't think that's necessary. We just need to be cognizant of it when
using inlined sorts, which are pretty rare at the moment. Your patches
should still be a net improvement in many cases because most qsorts use a
function pointer to the comparator.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Koshakow 2024-02-13 18:31:22 Fix overflow hazard in interval rounding
Previous Message Trevor Kohlman 2024-02-13 17:56:40 Re: Feature request support MS Entra ID Authentication from On-premises PostreSQL server