Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2) - bug report
this bug is only for win32 system. On mingw32 random() function have to be initialized by srandom(). so, I put srandom(time(NULL)) line. and, Because random() function return integer (2byte), this return integer number need filtering. so, I changed random() % 255 line. on win32, original code gen_salt() function allways returned $1$/2E./2E.. this string made by same return value by random() function. (sorry, I can't express in good English) plz, check and properly fix this bug. I tried 255 operation. but this bug is still. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2) - bug report
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: this bug is only for win32 system. On mingw32 random() function have to be initialized by srandom(). so, I put srandom(time(NULL)) line. But there is already an srandom() call during backend startup. Because random() function return integer (2byte), this return integer number need filtering. so, I changed random() % 255 line. But the value will automatically be converted to a single byte when it's stored into a uint8 variable. plz, check and properly fix this bug. I see no bug here. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2) - bug report
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:18:41AM +0900, Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote: this bug is only for win32 system. On mingw32 random() function have to be initialized by srandom(). so, I put srandom(time(NULL)) line. and, Because random() function return integer (2byte), this return integer number need filtering. so, I changed random() % 255 line. on win32, original code gen_salt() function allways returned $1$/2E./2E.. this string made by same return value by random() function. (sorry, I can't express in good English) This seems really suspicious. My explanation would be, that Win32 starup somehow skips the srandom call. Or could the (MyProcPid ^ port-session_start.tv_usec) be constant on win32? plz, check and properly fix this bug. I tried 255 operation. but this bug is still. I dont understand. Does that mean that random() random() 255 are buggy, but random() % 255 is not? -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2)
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote: I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32. I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file. What is the purpose of this addition? + srandom(time(NULL)); + Is resetting the seed on each call a good idea? cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2)
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IGZ1bmN0aW9uIGdlbl9zYWx0KCkgaW4gY29udHJpYi9w Z2NyeXB0byBoYWQgYnVnIG9uIHdpbjMyLg0KDQpJIHBhdGNoZWQgY29udHJp Yi9wZ2NyeXB0by9yYW5kb20uYyBmaWxlLg0KDQo= Unencoded text would be nicer to reply to ... But anyway, why are you inserting an srandom() call? That changes the behavior on all platforms not just win32. And I don't think the % 255 change is right either; doesn't that make it impossible to produce 255 as an output byte? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2)
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:28AM +0900, Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote: I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32. I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file. Could you describe the bug bit more? As for srandom, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c does it already, and doing it more will make matters only worse. I would not object to just sticking ' 255' there, but if current code has problems then I imagine lot more code could be affected. Or are you just silencing some warning? -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2)
Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for srandom, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c does it already, and doing it more will make matters only worse. Yes. I think we had some discussion about that already, and concluded it was a bad idea to insert ad-hoc srandom calls. I would not object to just sticking ' 255' there, The patch actually says '% 255' which is a whole different animal; it still requires explaining though. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] patch contrib/pgcrypto for win32 (2)
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:36:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would not object to just sticking ' 255' there, The patch actually says '% 255' which is a whole different animal; it still requires explaining though. Yeah, I was hinting that ' 255' I could accept with less explaining... -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
