Re: Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options()
| От | Thomas Munro |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options() |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAEepm=2xjrt4P1-UYs5170B5sc5Gq7bT9gj9eB=33GLFn9Wk0Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options() (Julian Hsiao <jhsiao@salesforce.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options()
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:02 PM Julian Hsiao <jhsiao@salesforce.com> wrote:
> During a routine Coverity scan of our internal PostgreSQL fork, it
> issued a buffer overrun warning for src/backend/libpq/hba.c,
> gethba_options()[0]:
>
> MAIN_ISSUE EventDescription: Overrunning array "options" of 12 8-byte
> elements at element index 12 (byte offset 96) using index "noptions++"
> (which evaluates to 12).
> [...]
> if (hba->ldapscope)
> options[noptions++] =
> CStringGetTextDatum(psprintf("ldapscope=%d", hba->ldapscope));
> [...]
>
> This is because earlier in the function[1], if hba->usermap,
> hba->clientcert, and hba->pamservice were set then noptions would
> exceed MAX_HBA_OPTIONS. Of course, if those options are mutually
> exclusive with hba->auth_method == uaLDAP, then it's a false positive.
> Is that the case, or should MAX_HBA_OPTIONS be increased?
Right, thank you. It seems clear that MAX_HBA_OPTIONS should be
increased and the comment near its definition is wrong. Will fix.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: