From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
Date: | 2020-11-30 04:58:56 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm0LT73dKHTXOZG8o0-ePxb7dL2K37UiEF5KZEn6QS50jQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The idea here is to implement & expose pg_print_callstack function,
> > internally what this function does is, the connected backend will send
> > SIGUSR1 signal by setting PMSIGNAL_BACKTRACE_EMIT to the postmaster
> > process. Postmaster process will send a SIGUSR1 signal to the process
> > by setting PROCSIG_BACKTRACE_PRINT if the process has access to
> > ProcSignal. As syslogger process & Stats process don't have access to
> > ProcSignal, multiplexing with SIGUSR1 is not possible for these
> > processes, hence SIGUSR2 signal will be sent for these processes. Once
> > the process receives this signal it will log the backtrace of the
> > process.
>
> Surely this is *utterly* unsafe. You can't do that sort of stuff in
> a signal handler.
>
> It might be all right to set a flag that would cause the next
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to print a backtrace, but I'm not sure
> how useful that really is.
>
> The proposed postmaster.c addition seems quite useless, as there
> is exactly one stack trace it could ever log.
>
> I would like to see some discussion of the security implications
> of such a feature, as well. ("There aren't any" is the wrong
> answer.)
Hi Hackers,
Any thoughts on the security implication for this feature.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Krunal Bauskar | 2020-11-30 05:02:04 | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-30 04:50:42 | Re: [PATCH] fix compilation with gnu89 |