Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync()
От | Mark Dilger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 107de5d3-6972-7566-04d1-4776b677b462@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync() (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/24/19 6:28 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:57:57PM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote: >> The code and comments don't clearly indicate what you have said in the >> email, that you are verifying directories are opened read-only and files are >> opened either read-write or write-only. I'd recommend changing the comments >> a bit to make that clearer. > > Thanks for the suggestions, sounds fine to me. > >> I would also rearrange the code a little, as it is slightly clearer to read: >> >> if (x) >> /* directory stuff */ >> else >> /* file stuff */ >> >> than as you have it: >> >> if (!x) >> /* file stuff */ >> else >> /* directory stuff */ > > The check order in the former patch is consistent with what's done at > the top of fsync_fname_ext(), still I can see your point. So let's do > as you suggest. > >> I'm a little uncertain about ignoring fstat errors as you do, but left that >> part of the logic alone. I understand that any fstat error will likely be >> immediately followed by another error when the fsync is attempted, but >> relying on that seems vaguely similar to the security vulnerability of >> checking permissions and then opening a file as two separate operations. >> Not sure the analogy actually holds for fstat before fsync, though. > > The only possible error which could be expected here would be a ENOENT > so we could filter after that, but fsync() would most likely complain > about that so it sounds better to let it do its work with its own > logging, which would be more helpful for the user, if of course we > have fsync=on in postgresql.conf. > >> Attached is a revised version of the patch. Perhaps you can check what I've >> done and tell me if I've broken it. > > Thanks for the review. I was wondering why I did not do that as well > for file_utils.c, just to find out that fsync_fname() is the only > entry point in file_utils.c. Anyway, the patch had a problem > regarding fcntl() which is not available on Windows (see for example > pg_set_noblock in noblock.c). Performing the sanity check will allow > to catch any problems for all platforms we support, so let's just skip > it for Windows. For this reason it is better as well to update errno > to 0 after the fstat() call. Who knows... Attached is an updated > version, with your changes included. How does that look? That looks great, thank you, but I have not tested it yet. I'll go do that now.... -- Mark Dilger
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: