On 11/28/2017 03:20 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-27 15:59:37 -0500, Todd A. Cook wrote:
>>> COPY reproducer (val) FROM stdin;
>>> 2976219712004784288
>>> -6429122065899879392
>>> -7471109962990387136
>>> -7471109962990387136
>>> -2895470491222113184
>>> -4083509061952565472
>>> 1019481548263425664
>>> 4639248884787347648
>>> -6999443831165647744
>>> -4199917803455020480
>>> -4110530183001439680
>>
>> How are these values generated? They awfully look like hash values
>> (~same lenght, full numerical range)...
>
> 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?
>
Yeah, I came to the same hypothesis yesterday, but I see I failed to
keep pgsql-bugs on CC :-(
FWIW I believe the last doubling (from 2147483648 to 2*2147483648) is
doomed to fail due to the sizemask=0 bug. I mean, if oldsize=2147483648,
then newsize=2*2147483648, which triggers this:
if (tb->size == SH_MAX_SIZE) tb->sizemask = 0;
which would explain why the last grow did not complete even after 40
minutes (while the 1073741824->2147483648 took 15 seconds). Because with
sizemask=0 the SH_NEXT/SH_PREV/.. can only ever returns 0.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
