Re: pg_cryptohash_final possible out-of-bounds access (per Coverity)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_cryptohash_final possible out-of-bounds access (per Coverity)
Date: 2021-02-13 23:32:03
Message-ID: YChhc5yfp4+J5xks@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 05:37:32PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> IMO there is no necessity in back-patching.

You are missing the point here. What you are proposing here would not
be backpatched. However, reusing the same words as upthread, this has
a cost in terms of *future* maintenance. In short, any *future*
potential bug fix that would require to be backpatched in need of
using this function or touching its area would result in a conflict.
This changes makes no sense.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ranier Vilela 2021-02-14 00:33:48 Re: pg_cryptohash_final possible out-of-bounds access (per Coverity)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-02-13 22:59:09 Re: Detecting pointer misalignment (was Re: pgsql: Implementation of subscripting for jsonb)