From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix segfault calling PQflush on invalid connection
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 21:44:07 -0400
Message-ID: <819197.1660527847@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+mi_8Zm_mVVyW1iNFgyMd9Oh0Nv8-F+7Y3-BqwMgTMHuo_h2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+mi_8Zm_mVVyW1iNFgyMd9Oh0Nv8-F+7Y3-BqwMgTMHuo_h2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> writes:
> PQflush calls pqFlush, which performs struct access to the connection
> without checking if it's valid, resulting in a segfault if called with
> a null pointer.
> Please find attached a patch adding a guard to PQflush().
Seems reasonable, but this tickled a thought that's been in my
hindbrain for awhile: just checking for a null pointer is not
much of a check for being passed a valid PGconn pointer. Should
we add a magic number to struct PGconn, and modify all libpq's
entry points along the lines of
if (!conn || conn->magic != PGCONN_MAGIC)
return failure;
I'm honestly not entirely sure if this is worth the trouble;
I've not heard of many application bugs that this would've caught.
But the lack of any such check does seem like it's not up to
modern standards.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix segfault calling PQflush on invalid connection
In-Reply-To: <819197.1660527847@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox