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
Attachments:
0001-Properly-initalize-a-variable.patchtext/x-patch; charset=us-asciiDownload+1-1
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
Attachments:
pgrewind-restore-fix-v2.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload+6-3
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> 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
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> 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
At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:13:02 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> 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 <michael@paquier.xyz> 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