| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mats Kindahl <mats(at)timescale(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-02-08 20:07:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20240208200737.GA504276@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-02-08 13:44:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Are we okay with using macros that (a) have double evaluation hazards
>> and (b) don't enforce the data types being compared are the same?
>> I think static inlines might be a safer technology.
>
> +1
Agreed on static inlines.
> I'd put these static inlines into common/int.h. I don't think this is common
> enough to warrant being in c.h. Probably also doesn't hurt to have a not quite
> as generic name as INT_CMP, I'd not be too surprised if that's defined in some
> library.
>
>
> I think it's worth following int.h's pattern of including [s]igned/[u]nsigned
> in the name, an efficient implementation for signed might not be the same as
> for unsigned. And if we use static inlines, we need to do so for correct
> semantics anyway.
Seems reasonable to me.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-02-08 20:20:59 | Re: pg_get_expr locking |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-02-08 20:00:56 | Re: gcc build warnings at -O3 |