| From: | Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, freebsd-stable(at)freebsd(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Date: | 2006-04-03 03:31:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20060403033146.GA58254@xor.obsecurity.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it
> >> correctly. This example shows that each jail must have its own SysV
> >> semaphore key space, else information leaks anyway.
>
> > By default SysV shared memory is disallowed in jails.
>
> Hm, the present problem seems to be about semaphores not shared memory
Sorry, I meant IPC.
> ... although I'd not be surprised to find that there's a similar issue
> around shared memory. Anyway, if FBSD's position is that they are
> uninterested in supporting SysV IPC in connection with jails, then I
> think the Postgres project position has to be that we are uninterested
> in supporting Postgres inside FBSD jails.
No-one is taking a position of being "uninterested", so please don't
be hasty to reciprocate.
Kris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-04-03 03:38:23 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-04-03 03:30:58 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |