Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:35:59 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"? Message-ID: <20060404143441.C947@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20060404093058.GF683@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0604030817090.21105-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <20060403140902.C947@ganymede.hub.org> <20060403182504.S76562@fledge.watson.org> <20060403144916.J947@ganymede.hub.org> <20060404093058.GF683@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Mon, 2006-Apr-03 14:55:10 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> That is all I'm advocatin / asking for ... some way of reverting kill(PID, >> 0) back to the old, FreeBSD 4.x behaviour, where this works beautifully :( >> At least until someone does get around to 'virtualization of SysV IPC' :( > > There's the old standby: You have the source code. > > You should be able to get things to work by expanding prison_check() > into cr_cansignal() and changing the error return from ESRCH to EPERM. > Having not tried this, I can't comment on possible adverse side-effects. that's why I'm hoping for a more 'wide spread' fix ... right now, I have a work around for the problem, and the thread that has been going on concerning how 'per jail' IPC could be implemented looks very promising ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060404143441.C947>