| From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Fix misuse use of pg_b64_encode function (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c) |
| Date: | 2025-01-16 01:12:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAEudQAq-3yHsSdWoOOaw+gAQYgPMpMGuB5pt2yCXgv-YuxG2Hg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi.
Per Coverity.
CID 1590024: (CHECKED_RETURN)
Calling "pg_b64_encode" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere
8 out of 10 times).
The function *pg_b64_encode* has in the comments:
[0] "and -1 in the event of an error"
So, the function can fail.
All other calls check the return, In this case it could not be different.
Fix by checking the return and reporting a message to the user,
in case of failure.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
[0] I think the most correct would be *or* not *and* word?
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-misuse-function-pg_b64_encode.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anton A. Melnikov | 2025-01-16 01:15:31 | Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash? |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2025-01-16 01:00:51 | Re: An improvement of ProcessTwoPhaseBuffer logic |