Em seg., 12 de jul. de 2021 às 05:20, Heikki Linnakangas
escreveu:
> On 12/07/2021 02:34, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > If it is not possible, know the upper limits, before the loop.
> > It is necessary to do this inside the loop.
>
> > @@ -49,10 +47,14 @@ _bt_restore_page(Page page, char *from, int l
On 12/07/2021 02:34, Ranier Vilela wrote:
If it is not possible, know the upper limits, before the loop.
It is necessary to do this inside the loop.
@@ -49,10 +47,14 @@ _bt_restore_page(Page page, char *from, int len)
* To get the items back in the original order, we add them to the p
Em dom., 11 de jul. de 2021 às 19:19, Heikki Linnakangas
escreveu:
> On 11/07/2021 22:51, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While analyzing a possible use of an uninitialized variable, I checked
> that
> > *_bt_restore_page* can lead to memory corruption,
> > by not checking the maximum limit
On 11/07/2021 22:51, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Hi,
While analyzing a possible use of an uninitialized variable, I checked that
*_bt_restore_page* can lead to memory corruption,
by not checking the maximum limit of array items which is
MaxIndexTuplesPerPage.
+ /* Protect against corrupted rec
Hi,
While analyzing a possible use of an uninitialized variable, I checked that
*_bt_restore_page* can lead to memory corruption,
by not checking the maximum limit of array items which is
MaxIndexTuplesPerPage.
It can also generate a dangling pointer by incrementing it beyond the
limits it can po
