From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 3 03:11:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D534F16A4F6 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 03:11:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803C443D45 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 03:11:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641B91A3C1C; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 20:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A96095152B; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 23:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 23:11:57 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Tom Lane Message-ID: <20060403031157.GA57914@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <26524.1144026385@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060402222843.X947@ganymede.hub.org> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="envbJBWh7q8WU6mo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27417.1144033691@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" , Kris Kennaway , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:11:59 -0000 --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process) > where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the > process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess). >=20 > 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. Kris --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEMJJ9Wry0BWjoQKURAs9eAKDmVi9fEZoLyIcTQGCVCt7J6pgL8ACeN7/c vT2THLoKPfsjmy7V6pfk/Q4= =Yu3f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--