Commit 1bf4a84d authored by Stephen Frost's avatar Stephen Frost

Skip dead backends in MinimumActiveBackends

Back in ed0b409d, PGPROC was split and moved to static variables in
procarray.c, with procs in ProcArrayStruct replaced by an array of
integers representing process numbers (pgprocnos), with -1 indicating a
dead process which has yet to be removed.  Access to procArray is
generally done under ProcArrayLock and therefore most code does not have
to concern itself with -1 entries.

However, MinimumActiveBackends intentionally does not take
ProcArrayLock, which means it has to be extra careful when accessing
procArray.  Prior to ed0b409d, this was handled by checking for a NULL
in the pointer array, but that check was no longer valid after the
split.  Coverity pointed out that the check could never happen and so
it was removed in 5592ebac.  That didn't make anything worse, but it
didn't fix the issue either.

The correct fix is to check for pgprocno == -1 and skip over that entry
if it is encountered.

Back-patch to 9.2, since there can be attempts to access the arrays
prior to their start otherwise.  Note that the changes prior to 9.4 will
look a bit different due to the change in 5592ebac.

Note that MinimumActiveBackends only returns a bool for heuristic
purposes and any pre-array accesses are strictly read-only and so there
is no security implication and the lack of fields complaints indicates
it's very unlikely to run into issues due to this.

Pointed out by Noah.
parent 44096f1c
......@@ -2466,6 +2466,8 @@ MinimumActiveBackends(int min)
* free list and are recycled. Its contents are nonsense in that case,
* but that's acceptable for this function.
*/
if (pgprocno == -1)
continue; /* do not count deleted entries */
if (proc == MyProc)
continue; /* do not count myself */
if (pgxact->xid == InvalidTransactionId)
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment