Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in
Date
Msg-id 6772.1029857312@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in  ("Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk>)
Responses Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in  ("Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>)
Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in  (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk> writes:
> But going back to the idea that it seems that the only problem being
> publicised in the 'outside world' is the cash_out(2) version can we
> not do the restriction on acceptable input type in order to claim that
> the fix?

Totally pointless IMHO, when the same problem exists in hundreds of
other functions.  Also, there really is no way to patch cash_out per se;
the problem is a system-level problem, namely failure to enforce type
checking.  cash_out has no way to know that what it's been passed is the
wrong kind of datum.

Basically, we've used "opaque" as a substitute for accurate type
declarations; that's got to stop.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: bison news
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bison news