From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Dereferenced pointer in tablesample.c |
Date: | 2015-06-30 12:23:05 |
Message-ID: | 55928A29.9060503@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-06-30 09:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
> (Petr in CC)
>
> Coverity is complaining about the following pointer dereference in
> tablesample_init(at)tablesample(dot)c:
> + ExprState *argstate = ExecInitExpr(argexpr, (PlanState
> *) scanstate);
> +
> + if (argstate == NULL)
> + {
> + fcinfo.argnull[i] = true;
> + fcinfo.arg[i] = (Datum) 0;;
> + }
> +
> + fcinfo.arg[i] = ExecEvalExpr(argstate, econtext,
> +
> &fcinfo.argnull[i], NULL);
>
> If the expression argstate is NULL when calling ExecInitExpr(), argstate
> is going to be NULL and dereferenced afterwards, see execQual.c for more
> details. Hence I think that the patch attached should be applied. Thoughts?
>
Well, yes the ExecEvalExpr should be in the else block if we'd keep the
NULL logic there.
However after rereading the code, ISTM the ExecInitExpr will only return
NULL if the argexpr is NULL and argexpr is added by ParseTableSample
using the transformExpr on every argument which comes from grammar and
those are a_exprs which AFAIK will never be NULL. So I actually think
that the argstate can never be NULL in practice.
Given the above I would just remove the if statement here - it's not
present in any other code that does ExecInitExpr/ExecEvalExpr either.
It's most likely relic of the code that didn't treat the repeatable
separately and just put it into args List.
Patch attached.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
tablesample-remove-useless-null-check.diff | text/x-patch | 652 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-06-30 12:45:19 | Missing checks on return value of timestamp2tm in datetime.c |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-06-30 10:49:07 | Re: PANIC in GIN code |