Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz==uArh7kKifcfy68Qa4X2ECPE5rae_LpOBgdhXe2pOSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree indexcreation)  ("Tels" <nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Tels <nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com> wrote:
> Are the uninitialized bytes that are written out "whatever was in the
> memory previously" or just some "0x00 bytes from the allocation but not
> yet overwritten from the PG code"?
>
> Because the first sounds like it could be a security problem - if random
> junk bytes go out to the disk, and stay there, information could
> inadvertedly leak to permanent storage.

But you can say the same thing about *any* of the
write()-of-uninitialized-bytes Valgrind suppressions that already
exist. There are quite a few of those.

That just isn't part of our security model.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0