| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | nospam-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-02-05 21:57:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz==uArh7kKifcfy68Qa4X2ECPE5rae_LpOBgdhXe2pOSw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Tels <nospam-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com> wrote:
> Are the uninitialized bytes that are written out "whatever was in the
> memory previously" or just some "0x00 bytes from the allocation but not
> yet overwritten from the PG code"?
>
> Because the first sounds like it could be a security problem - if random
> junk bytes go out to the disk, and stay there, information could
> inadvertedly leak to permanent storage.
But you can say the same thing about *any* of the
write()-of-uninitialized-bytes Valgrind suppressions that already
exist. There are quite a few of those.
That just isn't part of our security model.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-02-05 22:27:01 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-05 21:45:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |