From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr  3 22:41:00 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 33D9716A400
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  3 Apr 2006 22:41:00 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EF043D6A
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  3 Apr 2006 22:40:52 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7B846C71;
	Mon,  3 Apr 2006 18:40:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:40:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <16158.1144094263@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <20060403233826.Q76562@fledge.watson.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>
	<20060403164139.D36756@fledge.watson.org>
	<14654.1144082224@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20060403194251.GF4474@ns.snowman.net> <16158.1144094263@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org,
	Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.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 <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 22:41:00 -0000


On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

> BTW, as long as we're annoying the freebsd-stable list with discussions of 
> workarounds, I'm wondering whether our shared memory code might have similar 
> risks.  Does FBSD 6 also lie about the existence of other-jail processes 
> connected to a shared memory segment --- ie, in shmctl(IPC_STAT)'s result, 
> does shm_nattch count only processes in our own jail?

People are, of course, welcome to read the Jail documentation in order to read 
the warning about not enabling the System V IPC support in Jails, and what the 
possible results of doing so are.

Robert N M Watson