Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fin52-0007mq-LP for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:41:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fin51-0005pt-4s for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:41:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fin4z-0005pa-HY for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:41:46 +0000 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fin4v-0001CG-3X for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:41:44 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE4B21AFA; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:41:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paquier.xyz; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; bh=m66vnOZT/KMl9t99oIqFv5t5gyE09x34vRpR1LOz3Bo=; b=3ATqfldT ahx79vJ8JiFFPa9salTDMluv8p1NvD+SKZxUdlurCnZbSrW2VFSy4/W8F7Rf7K1f 3f6j82Q1t46pKtt941nTkpOreXC6lK7t72EMRPS57pR6SBSCtkt33TUZg78gPOsR UqaNXQmu/byM83Zp50o0oFsMa7841TP2nr77Dn1whkIAydPJ5uKCuCMQmJC8n7H5 q8kqqjrYk+W9rm/+zJa3p4rRvdOW1VmJlpWHurKSFYprLRCqU8ne/KCtu5dfMYJy tsoBmBRj2PQuemCIUFalOtXaZ2fBjX7FShJXh2WA1y7SPQoUfkUtnmnCOVLVGWpj RfyfCyRueaIpzA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=m66vnOZT/KMl9t99oIqFv5t5gyE09 x34vRpR1LOz3Bo=; b=UnXREwAyUvuE8/PVud9v7q2p4iUY7xajwLtqBNN2Wv0p2 cxrTYe2oDxpl/LggNQH5w+XyieeXGOVPcgTn55Eq8aCtHw7z1OG8QmWrbzJBH9MC mYZePabvbVn9Ui6pLEJkFxToUXh13dYSp9OaCahuQiyM1G2Syd5m6wk5lvlCKpN4 tfsP0lQjHyJyjaR2pTD/6O1Khsn8sGJNlehiB9Y22HgroJiXLqPGgybDZqrqeEyY b5kBsaCrRIX1uMgyntYyF8Xbt0wyLwwNM0jT4K+QCDtsFi/4bfsB6ZWOsYJQVpme FKoeNPyLeELRa4sY5p8wwbJcyFyU59zIRauPZlO7A== X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from paquier.xyz (c137162.net61215.cablenet.ne.jp [61.215.137.162]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E1F5D1025D; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:41:27 +0900 From: Michael Paquier To: "Bossart, Nathan" Cc: Andres Freund , "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" , Robert Haas , "Schneider, Jeremy" , PostgreSQL-development , "Albin, Lloyd P" Subject: Re: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack Message-ID: <20180726204127.GA1754@paquier.xyz> References: <152512087100.19803.12733865831237526317@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <9145334b-9583-124c-012e-7d58039ad417@amazon.com> <20180724041403.GF4035@paquier.xyz> <20180724045010.GA4736@paquier.xyz> <20180726052415.GC3927@paquier.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:06:59PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I took a look at 0001. Thanks for the lookup. 0003 is the most simple in the set by the way. > On 7/26/18, 12:24 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > - myrelid =3D RelationGetRelid(rel); > + myrelid =3D RangeVarGetRelidExtended(rv, AccessExclusiveLock, > + false, RangeVarCallbackForTruncate, NULL); >=20 > Should the flags argument be 0 instead of false? Yes, those should be 0. All patches are missing that. It does not have a bad consequence on the patch, still that's incorrect. -- Michael --Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAltaMfcACgkQnvQgOdby QH20TA//WJWQ1DeTQre7qkwvn0MVQzjtS/I0LJT1UsstZJdN7iG4EQ9pOP/GpK8l 2//vFWzsACCQnMhiKkOIFlpNM8ht85e4DIc3hOVMrOVztQYIRHUHvIhid4Vkk8Po qkpeidsPO8ShonX6Xzc22Z8116p29CsP+4ut6g5YputNoiN+Cwo2f6SobhmB5fk5 aEZ3aSJiNUtNBQczVauV/YOqeDJ0O7xAGpFzlQEFbQsB8zQZdzZjVL5Q3UIXUBaI KaXZE0pfSgqvCfFKIhI0vSXYCtZe1NnJaSUgJduIaZ5LR4ZDBL772HxQx60skwda YSJm3RfLr24oTYKN7C5HTWsFmghcXMae5WYv6Id+RKRlZB9fAaG0xsvCWdsTN8ti tq+jVWO3aUn5O0aj3dXK6lfPFRP1qasMsI5COkwj+ZJ6p+sbX0UOX9aRtgEBPr67 qGBsr0h4VH3JCFrl//sm3qY0u+Z+kgs8TFNH1k8FsqZTVLOd6Zopec1g2z3ogtuG v4bS4Z6xxdOyCwS7JCV/mK7z3A85FcVBn/Mc1B8UIv7X7CWkfZ3bmjyOywzfC1Oi k70f/iU+hz3bbynZKZb4r0YEFA6uE7dNzghFyVeicxTLQ0Q3IESU/Q8vncai8j3h yhdr/Adud6bm0f/hRZD+W8W5vhX6+z363pw3jOGBnuLfyXG3F4w= =LpjF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q--