| From: | Robert Watson <rwatson(at)FreeBSD(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>, freebsd-stable(at)FreeBSD(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Date: | 2006-04-03 22:40:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20060403233826.Q76562@fledge.watson.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, as long as we're annoying the freebsd-stable list with discussions of
> workarounds, I'm wondering whether our shared memory code might have similar
> risks. Does FBSD 6 also lie about the existence of other-jail processes
> connected to a shared memory segment --- ie, in shmctl(IPC_STAT)'s result,
> does shm_nattch count only processes in our own jail?
People are, of course, welcome to read the Jail documentation in order to read
the warning about not enabling the System V IPC support in Jails, and what the
possible results of doing so are.
Robert N M Watson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-03 22:51:45 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Previous Message | Robert Watson | 2006-04-03 22:37:33 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |