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>