Re: No sanity checking performed on binary TIME parameters.

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew McNamara <andrewm(at)object-craft(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: No sanity checking performed on binary TIME parameters.
Date: 2009-05-25 14:57:36
Message-ID: 20090525145736.GQ8123@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure why we put a range limit on time values at all,
> but given that we do, it'd probably be a good idea to check the range
> in the recv functions. I'm inclined to fix this for 8.4, but not
> back-patch because of compatibility considerations. Any objections
> out there?

Are we confident it can't be abused to impact other clients connecting
or break the back-end in some way? More specifically, could it be a
security issue? Havn't looked at it yet, but getting what sounded like
corrupted data back out could be bad..

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-25 15:02:53 Re: generic options for explain
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-25 14:55:48 Re: generic options for explain