Re: forgotten initalization of a variable
At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:13:02 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier > > wrote in > >> a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in > >> the future. Please see the attached. > > > > It looks fine to me. > > Fixed this way, then. Thanks for the report! Thans for fixing this! regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
Re: forgotten initalization of a variable
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier > wrote in >> a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in >> the future. Please see the attached. > > It looks fine to me. Fixed this way, then. Thanks for the report! -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: forgotten initalization of a variable
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:08:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to > > XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets > > to set NULL. That can lead to illegal pointer access. > > That's an oversight of the original commit. Now, instead of failing > even if there is a restore command, wouldn't it be better to pass down > the restore_command to readOneRecord() so as we can optionally > improve the stability of a single record lookup? This only applies to Oops! You're right. > a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in > the future. Please see the attached. It looks fine to me. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
Re: forgotten initalization of a variable
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:08:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to
> XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets
> to set NULL. That can lead to illegal pointer access.
That's an oversight of the original commit. Now, instead of failing
even if there is a restore command, wouldn't it be better to pass down
the restore_command to readOneRecord() so as we can optionally
improve the stability of a single record lookup? This only applies to
a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in
the future. Please see the attached.
--
Michael
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c b/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c
index 14a5db5433..c51b5db315 100644
--- a/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c
@@ -106,7 +106,8 @@ extractPageMap(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr startpoint, int tliIndex,
* doing anything with the record itself.
*/
XLogRecPtr
-readOneRecord(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr ptr, int tliIndex)
+readOneRecord(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr ptr, int tliIndex,
+ const char *restoreCommand)
{
XLogRecord *record;
XLogReaderState *xlogreader;
@@ -115,6 +116,7 @@ readOneRecord(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr ptr, int tliIndex)
XLogRecPtr endptr;
private.tliIndex = tliIndex;
+ private.restoreCommand = restoreCommand;
xlogreader = XLogReaderAllocate(WalSegSz, datadir, ,
);
if (xlogreader == NULL)
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.c b/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.c
index 101f0911be..633955f7be 100644
--- a/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.c
@@ -339,7 +339,8 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
/* Read the checkpoint record on the target to see where it ends. */
chkptendrec = readOneRecord(datadir_target,
ControlFile_target.checkPoint,
- targetNentries - 1);
+ targetNentries - 1,
+ restore_command);
/*
* If the histories diverged exactly at the end of the shutdown
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.h b/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.h
index b122ae43e5..5cf5f17bb5 100644
--- a/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.h
+++ b/src/bin/pg_rewind/pg_rewind.h
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ extern void findLastCheckpoint(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr searchptr,
XLogRecPtr *lastchkptredo,
const char *restoreCommand);
extern XLogRecPtr readOneRecord(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr ptr,
-int tliIndex);
+int tliIndex, const char *restoreCommand);
/* in pg_rewind.c */
extern void progress_report(bool force);
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
forgotten initalization of a variable
Hello. The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets to set NULL. That can lead to illegal pointer access. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center >From 2260cf859ffa570639fd0b04cc94540a937e6042 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kyotaro Horiguchi Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:15:39 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Properly initalize a variable. Commit a7e8ece41c adds new member restoreCommand to XLogPageReadPrivate, but forgot to initialize it with NULL in readOneRecord. That leads to illegal pointer access in SimpleXLogPageRead. --- src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c b/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c index 14a5db5433..542160c493 100644 --- a/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c +++ b/src/bin/pg_rewind/parsexlog.c @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ readOneRecord(const char *datadir, XLogRecPtr ptr, int tliIndex) XLogRecPtr endptr; private.tliIndex = tliIndex; + private.restoreCommand = NULL; xlogreader = XLogReaderAllocate(WalSegSz, datadir, , ); if (xlogreader == NULL) -- 2.18.2
