From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sergey Koposov <skoposov(at)cmu(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "pg(at)bowt(dot)ie" <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit overflow |
Date: | 2017-07-05 22:03:56 |
Message-ID: | 28906.1499292236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Sergey Koposov <skoposov(at)cmu(dot)edu> writes:
> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 10:00 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> This is an oversight in commit 263865a. The fix is to use a variable
>> that won't overflow in tuplesort_heap_siftup() -- this is probably a
>> one-liner, because when the variable overflows today, the correct
>> behavior would be for control to break out of the loop that declares
>> the overflowing variable "j", and, I don't see any similar problem in
>> other heap maintenance routines. It's a very isolated problem.
>>
>> I could write a patch.
> Just to avoid being forgotten, I attach a trivial patch against 9.5
> branch as well as have created a commitfest submission
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1189/
I don't like s/int/int64/g as a fix for this. That loop is probably
a hot spot, and this fix is going to be expensive on any machine where
int64 isn't the native word width. How about something like this instead:
- int j = 2 * i + 1;
+ int j;
+ if (unlikely(i > INT_MAX / 2))
+ break; /* if j would overflow, we're done */
+ j = 2 * i + 1;
if (j >= n)
break;
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-07-05 22:14:14 | Re: BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit overflow |
Previous Message | Sergey Koposov | 2017-07-05 19:06:19 | Re: BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit overflow |