From: | Yichen Xie <yxie(at)cs(dot)stanford(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, <mc(at)cs(dot)stanford(dot)edu> |
Subject: | Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors |
Date: | 2003-01-29 00:30:07 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301281621260.3200-100000@canoe |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I think it's 'coz the only assignment to "plpgsql_nDatums" the checker
could find is on line 176, without realizing plpgsql_nDatums is actually a
global variable and could be changed anywhere... We'll rule out cases like
this in the future. Thanks for letting us know. --yichen
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm confused by the entry flagging pl_comp.c:527:
>
> [BUG] is plpgsql_nDatums 0 here? also, sizeof (plpgsql_nDatums) =
> 2*sizeof(PLpgSQL_datum *)
>
> Is the thing concerned because malloc(0) may yield NULL on some
> platforms? If so, should I object that it ought to be smart enough to
> know the loop won't execute in that case? Or am I missing something?
> Also, I don't understand your comment about the sizeof() relationship.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2003-01-29 01:07:30 | Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-29 00:05:34 | Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors |