From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
Date: | 2014-03-01 21:53:56 |
Message-ID: | 20140301215356.GD12995@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> In the case of Unix systems, there is a *far* simpler and more portable
> solution technique, which is to tell the test postmaster to put its socket
> in some non-world-accessible directory created by the test scaffolding.
Yes, yes, yes.
> Of course that doesn't work for Windows, which is why we looked at the
> random-password solution. But I wonder whether we shouldn't use the
> nonstandard-socket-location approach everywhere else, and only use random
> passwords on Windows. That would greatly reduce the number of cases to
> worry about for portability of the password-generation code; and perhaps
> we could also push the crypto issue into reliance on some Windows-supplied
> functionality (though I'm just speculating about that part).
Multi-user Windows build systems are *far* more rare than unix
equivilants (though even those are semi-rare in these days w/ all the
VMs running around, but still, you may have University common unix
systems with students building PG- the same just doesn't exist in my
experience on the Windows side).
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-01 22:10:21 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-03-01 21:25:29 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |