Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:07 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Seems to be a general consensus on static inlines. I'll get a new patch.

> > 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.
>

Agree.

Best wishes,
Mats Kindahl

>
> --
> Nathan Bossart
> Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>