From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr  3 19:41:29 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 CB5A116A453
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Apr 2006 19:41:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C87743D45
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Apr 2006 19:41:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id k33JfSWp013445; 
	Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:41:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:41:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060403163039.O947@ganymede.hub.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0604031537190.22397-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:41:29 -0000

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> >
> > Or:
> >
> >  3) Run postgres in such a way that it doesn't look for
> >     remnant IPC information from other instances (use a
> >     per-jail-specific port #?).
> >
> > Postgres has no business cleaning up after different jailed
> > instances of itself, which it wouldn't do if IPC's were
> > per-jail.  So since IPC's don't currently work that way,
> > account for it by the way you run postgres.
>
> This falls under "well,we broke kill() so that it now reports a PID is not
> in use even though it is, so its has to be the application that fixes it"

No, kill is performing as it should.  Se Robert's other response
regarding sendmail.

> ... and you *still* haven't shown *why* kill() reporting a PID is in use,
> even if its not in the current jail, is such a security threat ...

For reducing attacks I suppose.  But conceptually, something running
in a jail shouldn't be allowed to see out.

-- 
DE