| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix segmentation fault and infinite loop in jsonb_{plperl,plpython} |
| Date: | 2026-06-16 21:46:33 |
| Message-ID: | 969559.1781646393@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com> writes:
>> I thought about that, but I'm not sure how to build a bulletproof
>> check at reasonable (ie, near zero) cost. We could detect the example
>> case where an object refers directly to itself, by noticing that "in"
>> doesn't change in one iteration. But I'm pretty sure it's possible to
>> build reference loops involving two or more Perl objects, and those
>> would fool such a check.
> I was thinking about depth-first search where we store our current
> path in a set. If the visited node is already in the set then the
> graph has loops.
> This is not exactly cheap but the complexity is proportional to the
> cost of the serialization so I think we should be fine.
No, it'd be O(N^2) for an N-deep reference chain. Admittedly,
realistic use-cases would never have more than a couple of layers of
indirection. But this whole exercise is to guard against adversarial
inputs, I think. I don't really want to add cycles and complexity to
make our behavior a bit more friendly in cases that nobody is going
to get into unless they are trying to break the database.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2026-06-16 21:53:55 | Re: use of SPI by postgresImportForeignStatistics |
| Previous Message | Ben Mejia | 2026-06-16 21:45:00 | Re: [PATCH] vacuumdb: Add --exclude-database option |