From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | lister <lister(at)primetime(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Shared memory and FreeBSD's jail() |
Date: | 2005-05-19 15:42:13 |
Message-ID: | 3884.1116517333@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
lister <lister(at)primetime(dot)com> writes:
> At the BSDCan tutorial last week on jails (and several other times)
> there was discussion regarding Postgres's use of system V style
> shared memory, and an unfortunate side effect of making jail() less
> secure. Specifically, to allow Postgres to operate in a jail()ed
> environment, the sysctl :
> jail.sysvipc_allowed=1
> has to be set. This allows ALL jails to access the memory, at the least
> leaving Postgres open to attack, at the worst allowing a door into who
> knows what security breach.
This claim is really pretty bogus, since there is still standard
file-permission-like security on the shared memory. Only if you give
usage of the postgres account to processes running in other jails is
there any risk.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Hixson | 2005-05-19 15:46:39 | Re: 8.0.3 build error on Mac OS X 10.4 |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-05-19 15:34:44 | Re: unique index with bool |