| From: | Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>, "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 03:21:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20060403032130.GA58053@xor.obsecurity.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
> >> their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally hides the
> >> existence of the other process, and therefore having some calls that
> >> pretend it's not there is simply inconsistent.
>
> > I'm guessing it's a deliberate change to prevent the information
> > leakage between jails.
>
> 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.
Kris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-03 03:26:52 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-03 03:17:49 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |