Re: backpatch of datetime fixes

Lists: pgsql-hackers
From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: backpatch of datetime fixes
Date: 2002-08-20 22:24:35
Message-ID: 87ofbx9nj0.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I've backpatched Thomas's fixes for the potential buffer overruns in
the datetime code to the REL7_2_STABLE branch. The required changes
are pretty minimal, and the code passes the regression tests.

However, I haven't yet seen a test-case that demonstrates the buffer
overrun in 7.2 code (I originally found the problem when playing with
datetime on 7.3-dev with integer datetimes) -- I've tested it a little
bit and it seems to work, but this patch probably requires pretty
widespread testing.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

Attachment Content-Type Size
backport_fixes-2.patch text/x-patch 5.5 KB
From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: backpatch of datetime fixes
Date: 2002-08-21 01:18:46
Message-ID: 3D62EA76.A5A8A15C@fourpalms.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway wrote:
>
> I've backpatched Thomas's fixes for the potential buffer overruns in
> the datetime code to the REL7_2_STABLE branch. The required changes
> are pretty minimal, and the code passes the regression tests.
>
> However, I haven't yet seen a test-case that demonstrates the buffer
> overrun in 7.2 code (I originally found the problem when playing with
> datetime on 7.3-dev with integer datetimes)

I've had trouble provoking an error also, but the circumstances should
be related to having a long date/time input, especially if it has more
fields than one would expect in a valid date/time string.

- Thomas