On 11/27/17 23:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> When SH_INSERT tries to insert that final extra value, insertdist
>> keeps exceeding SH_GROW_MAX_DIB (25) no matter how many times we
>> double the size (at least until my computer gives up, somewhere around
>> 11 doublings and 75GB of virtual memory). If you set SH_GROW_MAX_DIB
>> to 26 then it succeeds, but I guess some other attack could be crafted
>> for that. What is the theory behind this parameter?
>
> You beat me to it --- after looking at simplehash.h I'd guessed that
> either the SH_GROW_MAX_DIB or SH_GROW_MAX_MOVE code path was causing
> an infinite loop, but I'd not gotten to determining which one yet.
>
> I'd ask what's the theory behind SH_GROW_MAX_MOVE, as well. Neither
> of them are obviously loop-proof.
>
> Note that the sample data has a lot of collisions:
>
> regression=# select hashint8(val), count(*) from reproducer group by 1 order by 2 desc;
> hashint8 | count
> -------------+-------
> 441526644 | 2337
> -1117776826 | 1221
> -1202007016 | 935
> -2068831050 | 620
> 1156644653 | 538
> 553783815 | 510
> 259780770 | 444
> 371047036 | 394
> 915722575 | 359
> ... etc etc ...
>
> It's evidently more complicated than just that the code fails with
> more than SH_GROW_MAX_DIB duplicate hashcodes, but I suspect not
> by a lot. There needs to be a safety valve that prevents letting
> the hash fill factor approach zero, which is what's happening in
> this test case.
FWIW, I can also reproduce the infinite loop with 167834 unique values.
It kinda looks like the problematic collisions arise from masking the
computed hash values; e.g.:
SH_INITIAL_BUCKET(SH_TYPE * tb, uint32 hash)
{
return hash & tb->sizemask;
}
(Also FWIW, changing SH_FILLFACTOR to 0.5 (from 0.9) did not help any.)
-- todd
