You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Avoid integer overflow while testing wal_skip_threshold condition.
smgrDoPendingSyncs had two distinct risks of integer overflow while
deciding which way to ensure durability of a newly-created relation.
First, it accumulated the total size of all forks in a variable of
type BlockNumber (uint32). While we restrict an individual fork's
size to fit in that, I don't believe there's such a restriction on
all of them added together. Second, it proceeded to multiply the
sum by BLCKSZ, which most certainly could overflow a uint32.
(The exact expression is total_blocks * BLCKSZ / 1024. The
compiler might choose to optimize that to total_blocks * 8,
which is not at quite as much risk of overflow as a literal
reading would be, but it's still wrong.)
If an overflow did occur it could lead to a poor choice to
shove a very large relation into WAL instead of fsync'ing it.
This wouldn't be fatal, but it could be inefficient.
Change total_blocks to uint64 which should be plenty, and
rearrange the comparison calculation to be overflow-safe.
I noticed this while looking for ramifications of the proposed
change in MAX_KILOBYTES. It's not entirely clear to me why
wal_skip_threshold is limited to MAX_KILOBYTES in the
first place, but in any case this code is unsafe regardless
of the range of wal_skip_threshold.
Oversight in c6b9204 which introduced wal_skip_threshold,
so back-patch to v13.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1a01f0-66ec2d80-3b-68487680@27595217
Backpatch-through: 13
0 commit comments