fill_seq_fork_with_data() initializes buffer without lock

Started by Andres Freundabout 3 years ago2 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Andres Freund
andres@anarazel.de

Hi,

Look at:

static void
fill_seq_fork_with_data(Relation rel, HeapTuple tuple, ForkNumber forkNum)
{
Buffer buf;
Page page;
sequence_magic *sm;
OffsetNumber offnum;

/* Initialize first page of relation with special magic number */

buf = ReadBufferExtended(rel, forkNum, P_NEW, RBM_NORMAL, NULL);
Assert(BufferGetBlockNumber(buf) == 0);

page = BufferGetPage(buf);

PageInit(page, BufferGetPageSize(buf), sizeof(sequence_magic));
sm = (sequence_magic *) PageGetSpecialPointer(page);
sm->magic = SEQ_MAGIC;

/* Now insert sequence tuple */

LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE);

Clearly we are modifying the page (via PageInit()), without holding a buffer
lock, which is only acquired subsequently.

It's clearly unlikely to cause bad consequences - the sequence doesn't yet
really exist, and we haven't seen any reports of a problem - but it doesn't
seem quite impossible that it would cause problems.

As far as I can tell, this goes back to the initial addition of the sequence
code, in e8647c45d66a - I'm too lazy to figure out whether it possibly wasn't
a problem in 1997 for some reason.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

#2Andres Freund
andres@anarazel.de
In reply to: Andres Freund (#1)
Re: fill_seq_fork_with_data() initializes buffer without lock

Hi,

On 2023-04-04 11:55:01 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:

Look at:

static void
fill_seq_fork_with_data(Relation rel, HeapTuple tuple, ForkNumber forkNum)
{
Buffer buf;
Page page;
sequence_magic *sm;
OffsetNumber offnum;

/* Initialize first page of relation with special magic number */

buf = ReadBufferExtended(rel, forkNum, P_NEW, RBM_NORMAL, NULL);
Assert(BufferGetBlockNumber(buf) == 0);

page = BufferGetPage(buf);

PageInit(page, BufferGetPageSize(buf), sizeof(sequence_magic));
sm = (sequence_magic *) PageGetSpecialPointer(page);
sm->magic = SEQ_MAGIC;

/* Now insert sequence tuple */

LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE);

Clearly we are modifying the page (via PageInit()), without holding a buffer
lock, which is only acquired subsequently.

It's clearly unlikely to cause bad consequences - the sequence doesn't yet
really exist, and we haven't seen any reports of a problem - but it doesn't
seem quite impossible that it would cause problems.

As far as I can tell, this goes back to the initial addition of the sequence
code, in e8647c45d66a - I'm too lazy to figure out whether it possibly wasn't
a problem in 1997 for some reason.

Robert suggested to add an assertion to PageInit() to defend against such
omissions. I quickly hacked one together. The assertion immediately found the
issue here, but no other currently existing ones.

I'm planning to push a fix for this to HEAD. Given that the risk seems low and
the issue is so longstanding, it doesn't seem quite worth backpatching?

FWIW, the assertion I used is:

if (page >= BufferBlocks && page <= BufferBlocks + BLCKSZ * NBuffers)
{
Buffer buffer = (page - BufferBlocks) / BLCKSZ + 1;
BufferDesc *buf = GetBufferDescriptor(buffer - 1);

Assert(LWLockHeldByMeInMode(BufferDescriptorGetContentLock(buf), LW_EXCLUSIVE));
}

If there's interest in having such an assertion permenantly, it clearly can't
live in bufpage.c.

I have a bit of a hard time coming up with a good name. Any suggestions?

Greetings,

Andres Freund