Thread: pg_regress/pg_isolation_regress: Fix possible nullptr dereference.

pg_regress/pg_isolation_regress: Fix possible nullptr dereference.

From
Xing Guo
Date:
Hi hackers,

While playing with pg_regress and pg_isolation_regress, I noticed that
there's a potential nullptr deference in both of them.

How to reproduce:

Specify the `--dbname=` option without providing any database name.

<path>/<to>/pg_regress --dbname=   foo
<path>/<to>/pg_isolation_regress --dbname=   foo

Patch is attached.

-- 
Best Regards,
Xing

Attachment

Re: pg_regress/pg_isolation_regress: Fix possible nullptr dereference.

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Xing Guo <higuoxing@gmail.com> writes:
> While playing with pg_regress and pg_isolation_regress, I noticed that
> there's a potential nullptr deference in both of them.
> How to reproduce:
> Specify the `--dbname=` option without providing any database name.

Hmm, yeah, I see that too.

> Patch is attached.

This patch seems like a band-aid, though.  The reason nobody's
noticed this for decades is that it doesn't make a lot of sense
to allow tests to run in your default database: the odds of them
screwing up something valuable are high, and the odds that they'll
fail if started in a nonempty database are even higher.

I think the right answer is to treat it as an error if we end up
with an empty dblist (or even a zero-length name).

            regards, tom lane