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

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLbC4O56rtFM69Tx6StT3PcVio9K2GisjZp=z6O20Q3sw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:06 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2024-02-07 19:52:11 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 04:42:07PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2024-02-07 16:21:24 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > >> The assembly for that looks encouraging, but I still need to actually test
> > >> it...
> > >
> > > Possible. For 16bit upcasting to 32bit is clearly the best way. For 32 bit
> > > that doesn't work, given the 32bit return, so we need something more.
> >
> > For the same compASC() test, I see an ~8.4% improvement with your int64
> > code
>
> Just to be clear, that code unfortuntely isn't correct, the return value is a
> 32 bit integer, so the 64bit difference doesn't help. In contrast to the 16bit
> case.

Perhaps you could wrap it in a branch-free sign() function so you get
a narrow answer?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14579920/fast-sign-of-integer-in-c



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Soumyadeep Chakraborty
Date:
Subject: Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING