Re: pg_shmem_allocations view

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_shmem_allocations view
Date: 2014-08-18 16:50:27
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY-6HanFp+FnTwa6d19M9t_ve5mkpnGwiLcuFBQrr3GKA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-08-18 12:41:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> Unfortunately, that information also has some security implications.
>> >> I'm sure someone trying to exploit any future stack-overrun
>> >> vulnerability will be very happy to have more rather than less
>> >> information about the layout of the process address space.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Meh. For one it's just the offsets, not the actual addresses. It's also
>> > something you can relatively easily compute at home by looking at a
>> > couple of settings everyone can see. For another, I'd be perfectly
>> > content making this superuser only. And if somebody can execute queries
>> > as superuser, address layout information really isn't needed anymore to
>> > execute arbitrary code.
>>
>> I'm just not sure it should be in there at all.
>
> You realize that you can pretty much recompute the offsets from the
> sizes of the individual allocations anyway?

Sure, if you know the segment base. Do you?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-08-18 16:51:42 Re: pg_shmem_allocations view
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-08-18 16:49:09 Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time