Avoid possible longjmp-induced logic error in PLy_trigger_build_args.

The "pltargs" variable wasn't marked volatile, which makes it unsafe
to change its value within the PG_TRY block.  It looks like the worst
outcome would be to fail to release a refcount on Py_None during an
(improbable) error exit, which would likely go unnoticed in the field.
Still, it's a bug.  A one-liner fix could be to mark pltargs volatile,
but on the whole it seems cleaner to arrange things so that we don't
change its value within PG_TRY.

Per report from Xing Guo.  This has been there for quite awhile,
so back-patch to all supported branches.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACpMh+DLrk=fDv07MNpBT4J413fDAm+gmMXgi8cjPONE+jvzuw@mail.gmail.com
This commit is contained in:
Tom Lane 2024-04-01 15:15:03 -04:00
parent de3c5b1872
commit fb60118bf2
1 changed files with 8 additions and 4 deletions

View File

@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ PLy_trigger_build_args(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, PLyProcedure *proc, HeapTuple *r
*pltrelid,
*plttablename,
*plttableschema,
*pltargs = NULL,
*pltargs,
*pytnew,
*pytold,
*pltdata;
@ -717,6 +717,11 @@ PLy_trigger_build_args(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, PLyProcedure *proc, HeapTuple *r
return NULL;
}
}
else
{
Py_INCREF(Py_None);
pltargs = Py_None;
}
PG_TRY();
{
@ -860,7 +865,7 @@ PLy_trigger_build_args(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, PLyProcedure *proc, HeapTuple *r
PyObject *pltarg;
/* pltargs should have been allocated before the PG_TRY block. */
Assert(pltargs);
Assert(pltargs && pltargs != Py_None);
for (i = 0; i < tdata->tg_trigger->tgnargs; i++)
{
@ -874,8 +879,7 @@ PLy_trigger_build_args(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, PLyProcedure *proc, HeapTuple *r
}
else
{
Py_INCREF(Py_None);
pltargs = Py_None;
Assert(pltargs == Py_None);
}
PyDict_SetItemString(pltdata, "args", pltargs);
Py_DECREF(pltargs);