Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 1:03 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> CID 1620458: Resource leaks (RESOURCE_LEAK)
>>> Variable "buffer" going out of scope leaks the storage it points to.
> This looks like a real leak. It can only happen once per tarfile when
> verifying a tar backup so it can never add up to much, but it makes
> sense to fix it.
+1
>>> CID 1620457: Memory - illegal accesses (OVERRUN)
>>> Overrunning array of 296 bytes at byte offset 296 by dereferencing pointer
>>> "(char *)&mystreamer->control_file + mystreamer->control_file_bytes".
> I think this might be complaining about a potential zero-length copy.
> Seems like perhaps the <= sizeof(ControlFileData) test should actually
> be < sizeof(ControlFileData).
That's clearly an improvement, but I was wondering if we should also
change "len" and "remaining" to be unsigned (probably size_t).
Coverity might be unhappy about the off-the-end array reference,
but perhaps it's also concerned about what happens if len is negative.
>>> CID 1620456: Null pointer dereferences (FORWARD_NULL)
>>> Passing null pointer "suffix" to "strcmp", which dereferences it.
> This one is happening, I believe, because report_backup_error()
> doesn't perform a non-local exit, but we have a bit of code here that
> acts like it does.
Check.
> Patch attached.
WFM, modulo the suggestion about changing data types.
regards, tom lane
