From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Infinite recursion in bitshift |
Date: | 2016-10-14 20:36:56 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yi9p-_Cabrqm5n7TqLCiWeQU5aET2j88BaT-gjMmszAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> writes:
>> Tom Lane writes:
>>> Seems sane, though I wonder if it'd be better to use -INT_MAX rather
>>> than -VARBITMAXLEN.
>
>> I am undecided between those two. -INT_MAX might be a more precise fix
>> for the problem, but the extra distance to the danger zone was kind of
>> soothing :-).
>
> Yeah, might as well use the tighter limit.
>
> Poking around in varbit.c, I noticed some other places that were assuming
> that a typmod couldn't exceed VARBITMAXLEN. anybit_typmodin() enforces
> that, but there are places where a user can shove in an arbitrary integer,
> eg
>
> regression=# select "bit"(42, 2147483647);
> ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 18446744073441116169
>
> I fixed those too and pushed it. Thanks for the report!
Curious -- are there real world scenarios where this would happen?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-14 20:44:14 | Re: [sqlsmith] Infinite recursion in bitshift |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-14 20:31:19 | Re: [sqlsmith] Infinite recursion in bitshift |