Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 02 Apr 2006 23:26:52 -0400
From:      Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject:   Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"? 
Message-ID:  <27571.1144034812@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <20060403032130.GA58053@xor.obsecurity.org> 
References:  <26796.1144028094@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060402225204.U947@ganymede.hub.org> <26985.1144029657@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060402231232.C947@ganymede.hub.org> <27148.1144030940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060402232832.M947@ganymede.hub.org> <20060402234459.Y947@ganymede.hub.org> <27417.1144033691@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060403031157.GA57914@xor.obsecurity.org> <27515.1144034269@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060403032130.GA58053@xor.obsecurity.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27571.1144034812>