| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: Potential pointer dereference in plperl.c (caused by transforms patch) |
| Date: | 2015-11-30 12:33:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQW4OaEbS9mEDySJObGqtH9+MZMoC1FNqiYUXvCb1XKcg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> fcinfo->flinfo->fn_oid==InvalidOid implies an inline block, and those have no
> arguments. If it placates Coverity, I lean toward an assert-only change:
Oh, thanks. I missed this point.
> --- a/src/pl/plperl/plperl.c
> +++ b/src/pl/plperl/plperl.c
> @@ -2112,6 +2112,8 @@ plperl_call_perl_func(plperl_proc_desc *desc, FunctionCallInfo fcinfo)
> EXTEND(sp, desc->nargs);
>
> + /* Get signature for true functions; inline blocks have no args. */
> if (fcinfo->flinfo->fn_oid)
> get_func_signature(fcinfo->flinfo->fn_oid, &argtypes, &nargs);
> + Assert(nargs == desc->nargs);
>
> for (i = 0; i < desc->nargs; i++)
Yeah that looks fine.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2015-11-30 12:47:34 | [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel) |
| Previous Message | Ildus Kurbangaliev | 2015-11-30 10:40:15 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |