On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:34:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Aleksander Alekseev > > <a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> Recently I've decided to run PostgreSQL under Valgrind according to wiki > >> description [1]. Lots of warnings are generated [2] but it is my > >> understanding that all of them are false-positive. For instance I've > >> found these two reports particularly interesting: > >> > >> ``` > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== Use of uninitialised value of size 8 > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== at 0xA15FF5: pg_b64_encode (base64.c:68) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x6FFE85: scram_build_verifier > >> (auth-scram.c:348) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x6F3F76: encrypt_password (crypt.c:171) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x68F40C: CreateRole (user.c:403) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x85D53A: standard_ProcessUtility > >> (utility.c:716) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x85CCC7: ProcessUtility (utility.c:353) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x85BD22: PortalRunUtility (pquery.c:1165) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x85BF20: PortalRunMulti (pquery.c:1308) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x85B4A0: PortalRun (pquery.c:788) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x855672: exec_simple_query > >> (postgres.c:1101) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x8597BB: PostgresMain (postgres.c:4066) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== by 0x7C6322: BackendRun (postmaster.c:4317) > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== Uninitialised value was created by a stack > >> allocation > >> ==00:00:40:40.161 7677== at 0x6FFDB7: scram_build_verifier > >> (auth-scram.c:328) > > > > I can see those warnings as well after calling a code path of > > scram_build_verifier(), and I have a hard time seeing that as nothing > > else than a false positive as you do. All those warnings go away if > > you just initialize just do MemSet(salt, 0, SCRAM_SALT_LEN) before > > calling pg_backend_random() but this data is filled in with > > RAND_bytes() afterwards (if built with openssl). The estimated lengths > > of the encoding are also correct. I don't see immediately what's wrong > > here, this deserves a second look... > > And it seems to me that this is caused by the routines of OpenSSL. > When building without --with-openssl, using the fallback > implementations of SHA256 and RAND_bytes I see no warnings generated > by scram_build_verifier... I think it makes most sense to discard that > from the list of open items.
This defect has roughly the gravity of a compiler warning. Dropped from open items on that basis. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
