s,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
MMUTATOR clause in the extension.
>
I understand your reticence to dive into a branch that is long dead from
your perspective. That said, I am grateful for the insights you
provided here.
> It'd likely be a good idea to reproduce this with a gdb breakpoint
> set at errfinish, and see exactly what's leading up to the error.
>
Thanks for this suggestion. I will see if I am able to isolate the
precise cause of the failure with this.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
not a sufficient guard, then is a
backport of c94959d4110a1965472956cfd631082a96f64a84 in conjunction with
the CVE-2022-2625 fix the correct solution?
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Hello pgsql-hackers,
Is there anyone willing to review the patches that I prepared? I'd have
substatntially more confidence in the patches with a review from an
upstream developer who is familiar with the code.
Regards,
-Roberto
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 06:06:58PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez
On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 05:31:22PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:15:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Roberto =?iso-8859-1?Q?C=2E_S=E1nchez?= writes:
> > > I am investigating backporting the fixes for CVE-2022-1552 to 9.6 and
> > >
e
>
Thanks for the pointer.
> We're going to have to tweak that code somehow, and it's not yet
> entirely clear how.
>
I will monitor the discussion to see what comes of it.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
the vulnerability in both 9.6 and 9.4. However, the SUSE
security information page for CVE-2022-1552 [0] lists 9.6 as "not
affected". Presumably this is based on the language in the upstream
advisory "Versions Affected: 10 - 14."
[0] https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2022-1552.html
--
