Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
>> The types "int" and "size_t" are treated as s32 and u32 respectively since
>> that seems to be the case for most of the code, even if strictly not
>> correct (size_t can be an unsigned long int for some architecture).

> Why is it safe to do this?

We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32".  But I agree that
assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad.  I think we need
a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().

            regards, tom lane