Re: Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Justin Clift" <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL
Date: 2002-08-12 04:16:55
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEKDCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I see one unsubstantiated allegation about PG intermixed with a ton
> of content-free navel-gazing. Don't waste my time.

For instance, when I submitted patches for fulltextindex 7.2 it freely used
unchecked sprintf's everywhere. Even now I'm not sure what'll happen if a
malicious user really tried to crash it. Anyway, who cares about printfs
when stuff like select cash_out(2) is documented?

> I have no doubt that some problems remain (cf recent agonizing over
> whether there is a buffer overrun problem in the date parser) ...
> but unspecific rumors don't help anyone. As always, the best form of
> criticism is a diff -c patch.

Maybe we could form a bunch of people on this list interested in checking
for security issues and fixing them. I'd be in, time be willing...

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-08-12 04:33:27 cash_out bug
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-12 04:10:05 Re: Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL