Re: [PATCH] bms_prev_member() can read beyond the end of the array of allocated words
От | Burd, Greg |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] bms_prev_member() can read beyond the end of the array of allocated words |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F4749748-F936-4B05-833F-C401B69C97A3@burd.me обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] bms_prev_member() can read beyond the end of the array of allocated words (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Aug 15, 2025, at 12:37 AM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 15:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes: >>> I'm happy to push Greg's v5 patch if you have no counterarguments. >> >> In the end this isn't something I find worth arguing about. If >> you prefer v5, sure. I do suggest though that if we're installing >> Asserts at all, defending against prevbit < -1 is worth doing. Agreed, that's a reasonable addition. > Agreed about defending against prevbit < -1. I added an Assert for > that. Technically, that Assert could be up above the if (a == NULL) > check, but I didn't think it mattered that much and opted to keep both > Asserts together. The difference being that bms_prev_member(NULL, -2) > will return -2 rather than Assert fail. I'm not too worried about > that, but if you feel strongly differently, I can adjust what I just > pushed. Thanks for adding that Assert. I don't think it's worth relocating at this time. I'll post the addition of tests in a new thread. I hope you both have interest and time to review that as well. > David Thanks David for pushing the commit! :) best. -greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: