mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2025-05-05 09:19:17 +03:00
Fix incorrect sentinel byte logic in GenerationRealloc()
This only affects MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds. This fixes an off-by-one issue in GenerationRealloc() where the fast-path code which tries to reuse the existing allocation if the existing chunk is >= the new requested size. The code there thought it was always ok to use the existing chunk, but when oldsize == size there isn't enough space to store the sentinel byte. If both sizes matched exactly set_sentinel() would overwrite the first byte beyond the chunk and then subsequent GenerationRealloc() calls could then fail the Assert(chunk->requested_size < oldsize) check which is trying to ensure the chunk is large enough to store the sentinel. The same issue does not exist in aset.c as the sentinel checking code only adds a sentinel byte if there's enough space in the chunk. Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/49275921-7b39-41af-5eb8-97b50ce3312e@gmail.com Backpatch-through: 16, where the problem was introduced by 0e480385e
This commit is contained in:
parent
2a5ef09830
commit
97651b0139
@ -846,8 +846,8 @@ GenerationRealloc(void *pointer, Size size, int flags)
|
|||||||
#endif
|
#endif
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* Maybe the allocated area already is >= the new size. (In particular,
|
* Maybe the allocated area already big enough. (In particular, we always
|
||||||
* we always fall out here if the requested size is a decrease.)
|
* fall out here if the requested size is a decrease.)
|
||||||
*
|
*
|
||||||
* This memory context does not use power-of-2 chunk sizing and instead
|
* This memory context does not use power-of-2 chunk sizing and instead
|
||||||
* carves the chunks to be as small as possible, so most repalloc() calls
|
* carves the chunks to be as small as possible, so most repalloc() calls
|
||||||
@ -855,7 +855,12 @@ GenerationRealloc(void *pointer, Size size, int flags)
|
|||||||
*
|
*
|
||||||
* XXX Perhaps we should annotate this condition with unlikely()?
|
* XXX Perhaps we should annotate this condition with unlikely()?
|
||||||
*/
|
*/
|
||||||
|
#ifdef MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING
|
||||||
|
/* With MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING, we need an extra byte for the sentinel */
|
||||||
|
if (oldsize > size)
|
||||||
|
#else
|
||||||
if (oldsize >= size)
|
if (oldsize >= size)
|
||||||
|
#endif
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
#ifdef MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING
|
#ifdef MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING
|
||||||
Size oldrequest = chunk->requested_size;
|
Size oldrequest = chunk->requested_size;
|
||||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user