| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mats Kindahl <mats(at)timescale(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2024-02-09 16:27:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1596756.1707496048@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
>> The types "int" and "size_t" are treated as s32 and u32 respectively since
>> that seems to be the case for most of the code, even if strictly not
>> correct (size_t can be an unsigned long int for some architecture).
> Why is it safe to do this?
We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32". But I agree that
assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad. I think we need
a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-02-09 16:32:45 | Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-02-09 16:24:33 | Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability |