| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |
| Date: | 2011-02-03 18:20:26 |
| Message-ID: | 201102031820.p13IKQL08390@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I have reviewed is_absolute_path() and have implemented
> > path_is_relative_and_below_cwd() to cleanly handle cases like 'E:abc' on
> > Win32; patch attached.
>
> This patch appears to remove some security-critical restrictions.
> Why did you delete the path_contains_parent_reference calls?
They are now in path_is_relative_and_below_cwd(), and I assume we can
allow ".." for an absolute path in these cases, i.e. it has to match the
data or log path we defined, and I don't see a general reason to prevent
".." in absolute paths, only relative ones.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-03 18:20:48 | Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH] |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-02-03 18:17:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |