Re: Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options()
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=0=riqLg8CJjGXzMNCdBxPBCPK2u6XNfZw4j+3MtGiqhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Possible buffer overrun in src/backend/libpq/hba.c gethba_options() (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:42 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:02 PM Julian Hsiao <jhsiao@salesforce.com> wrote: > > During a routine Coverity scan of our internal PostgreSQL fork, it > > issued a buffer overrun warning for src/backend/libpq/hba.c, > > gethba_options()[0]: > > > > MAIN_ISSUE EventDescription: Overrunning array "options" of 12 8-byte > > elements at element index 12 (byte offset 96) using index "noptions++" > > (which evaluates to 12). > > [...] > > if (hba->ldapscope) > > options[noptions++] = > > CStringGetTextDatum(psprintf("ldapscope=%d", hba->ldapscope)); > > [...] > > > > This is because earlier in the function[1], if hba->usermap, > > hba->clientcert, and hba->pamservice were set then noptions would > > exceed MAX_HBA_OPTIONS. Of course, if those options are mutually > > exclusive with hba->auth_method == uaLDAP, then it's a false positive. > > Is that the case, or should MAX_HBA_OPTIONS be increased? > > Right, thank you. It seems clear that MAX_HBA_OPTIONS should be > increased and the comment near its definition is wrong. Will fix. I'm pretty sure that's not a live bug, but I pushed a fix to master, 11 and 10 (slightly different numbers) because it was still wrong. I hope Coverity is happier now. Thanks for the report. Gee, it'd be nice to be able to build dynamically sized arrays of datums in something more like a C++ vector and get rid of code like this. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: