Обсуждение: Re: Slow GRANT ROLE on PostgreSQL 16 with thousands of ROLEs

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:21:23PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>Committed with that change. Thanks for the guidance on this one.
> 
> I think that left an oversight in a commit d365ae7
> <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/d365ae705409f5d9c81da4b668f59c3598feb512>
> If the admin_role is a NULL pointer, so, can be dereferenced
> in the main loop of the function roles_is_member_of and
> worst, IMO, can be destroying aleatory memory?
> 
> First, is a better shortcut test to check if admin_role is NOT NULL.
> Second, !OidIsValid(*admin_role), It doesn't seem necessary anymore.
> 
> Or am I losing something?

If admin_role is NULL, then admin_of is expected to be set to InvalidOid.
See the assertion at the top of the function.  AFAICT the code that
dereferences admin_role short-circuits if admin_of is invalid.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:47:38PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em qua., 27 de mar. de 2024 às 13:41, Nathan Bossart <
> nathandbossart@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:21:23PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> > I think that left an oversight in a commit d365ae7
>> > <
>> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/d365ae705409f5d9c81da4b668f59c3598feb512
>> >
>> > If the admin_role is a NULL pointer, so, can be dereferenced
>> > in the main loop of the function roles_is_member_of and
>> > worst, IMO, can be destroying aleatory memory?
>> >
>> > First, is a better shortcut test to check if admin_role is NOT NULL.
>> > Second, !OidIsValid(*admin_role), It doesn't seem necessary anymore.
>> >
>> > Or am I losing something?
>>
>> If admin_role is NULL, then admin_of is expected to be set to InvalidOid.
>> See the assertion at the top of the function.  AFAICT the code that
>> dereferences admin_role short-circuits if admin_of is invalid.
>>
> These conditions seem a little fragile and confusing to me.
> When a simple test, it protects the pointer and avoids a series of tests,
> which are unnecessary if the pointer is invalid.

Maybe.  But that doesn't seem like an oversight in commit d365ae7.

-            if (otherid == admin_of && form->admin_option &&
-                OidIsValid(admin_of) && !OidIsValid(*admin_role))
+            if (admin_role != NULL && otherid == admin_of && form->admin_option &&
+                OidIsValid(admin_of))
                 *admin_role = memberid;

I'm not following why it's safe to remove the !OidIsValid(*admin_role)
check here.  We don't want to overwrite a previously-set value of
*admin_role, as per the comment above roles_is_member_of():

 * If admin_of is not InvalidOid, this function sets *admin_role, either
 * to the OID of the first role in the result list that directly possesses
 * ADMIN OPTION on the role corresponding to admin_of, or to InvalidOid if
 * there is no such role.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com