Re: semaphore usage "port based"?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>
Cc: "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 03:26:52
Message-ID: 27571.1144034812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
... 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. Sorry Marc :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2006-04-03 03:30:58 Re: semaphore usage "port based"?
Previous Message Kris Kennaway 2006-04-03 03:21:30 Re: semaphore usage "port based"?