On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.)
Should these patches be applied? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
