Robert Haas escribió: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Xi Wang escribió: > >> Intel's icc and PathScale's pathcc compilers optimize away several > >> overflow checks, since they consider signed integer overflow as > >> undefined behavior. This leads to a vulnerable binary. > > > > This thread died without reaching a conclusion. Noah Misch, Robert Haas > > and Greg Stark each gave a +1 to the patches, but Tom Lane gave them a > > -inf; so they weren't applied. However, I think everyone walked away > > with the feeling that Tom is wrong on this. > > > > Meanwhile Xi Wang and team published a paper: > > http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf > > > > Postgres is mentioned a number of times in this paper -- mainly to talk > > about the bugs we leave unfixed. > > > > It might prove useful to have usable these guys' STACK checker output > > available continuously, so that if we happen to introduce more bugs in > > the future, it alerts us about that. > > Yeah, I think we ought to apply those patches. I don't suppose you > have links handy?
Sure, see this thread in the archives: first one is at http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/510100aa.4050...@gmail.com and you can see the others in the dropdown (though since the subjects are not shown, only date and author, it's a bit hard to follow. The "flat" URL is useful.) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
