From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ARRNELEMS Out-of-bounds possible errors |
Date: | 2022-12-22 22:20:26 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQArkLAqnX0QiJiqtd5uHwaeUwcm8TVqSMRvNzMwqeKrDrw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em qui., 22 de dez. de 2022 às 15:45, Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, there would be much more sources affected, like
> nbytes += subbytes[outer_nelems];
> subnitems[outer_nelems] = ArrayGetNItems(this_ndims,
> ARR_DIMS(array));
> nitems += subnitems[outer_nelems];
> havenulls |= ARR_HASNULL(array);
> outer_nelems++;
> }
>
> Maybe it is better for most calls like this to keep old behavior, by
> passing a flag
> that says which behavior is expected by caller?
>
I agreed that it is better to keep old behavior.
Even the value 0 is problematic, with calls like this:
nel = ARRNELEMS(ent);
memcpy(ptr, ARRPTR(ent), nel * sizeof(int32));
regards,
Ranier Vilela
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-12-22 23:47:24 | Re: Allow WindowFuncs prosupport function to use more optimal WindowClause options |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-12-22 22:06:42 | Re: Array initialisation notation in syscache.c |