Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Date
Msg-id 642084.1707252958@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
List pgsql-hackers
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Even if the glibc issue doesn't apply to Postgres, I'm tempted to suggest
> that we make it project policy that comparison functions must be
> transitive.  There might be no real issues today, but if we write all
> comparison functions the way Mats is suggesting, it should be easier to
> reason about overflow risks.

A comparison routine that is not is probably broken, agreed.
I didn't look through the details of the patch --- I was more
curious whether we had a version of the qsort bug, because
if we do, we should fix that too.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability