From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Refactoring base64 encoding and decoding into a safer interface |
Date: | 2019-07-02 07:56:03 |
Message-ID: | 42D26652-6DBF-4705-BEA4-7D107F8B687C@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 07:41, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> In the below passage, we leave the input buffer with a non-complete
>> encoded string. Should we memset the buffer to zero to avoid the
>> risk that code which fails to check the return value believes it has
>> an encoded string?
>
> Hmm. Good point. I have not thought of that, and your suggestion
> makes sense.
>
> Another question is if we'd want to actually use explicit_bzero()
> here, but that could be a discussion on this other thread, except if
> the patch discussed there is merged first:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/42d26bde-5d5b-c90d-87ae-6cab875f73be@2ndquadrant.com
I’m not sure we need to go to that length, but I don’t have overly strong
opinions. I think of this more like a case of “we’ve changed the API with new
errorcases that we didn’t handle before, so we’re being a little defensive to
help you avoid subtle bugs”.
> Attached is an updated patch.
Looks good, passes tests, provides value to the code. Bumping this to ready
for committer as I no more comments to add.
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-07-02 07:58:56 | Re: [PATCH] Speedup truncates of relation forks |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-02 07:49:12 | Re: Replacing the EDH SKIP primes |