Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:37:11 +1200 From: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"? Message-ID: <20060403043711.GB76193@heff.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <20060403011401.I947@ganymede.hub.org> References: <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> <20060403002830.W947@ganymede.hub.org> <20060403034101.GA58429@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060403035911.GA76193@heff.fud.org.nz> <20060403011401.I947@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:23:59AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > taking it off of pgsql-hackers, so that we don't annoy them unnecessarily > ... > > 'k, looking at the code, not that most of it doesn't go over my head ... > but ... > > in kern/kern_jail.c, I can see the prison_check() call ... wouldn't one > want to make the change a bit further up? say in kern_prot.c? wouldn't > you want to change just cr_cansignal() to allow *just* for 'case 0', when > someone is just checking to see if a process is already running? I > wouldn't want to be able to SIGKILL the process from a different jail, > mind you ... maybe move the check for SIG0 to just before the > prison_check, since, unless I'm missing something, other then determining > that a process is, in fact, running, SIG0 is a benign signal? > I think the suggestion was to make this EPERM rather than ESRCH to make postgres a bit happier, not remove the check entirely. Im not familiar with that part of the kernel at all, so I cant say what the consequences will be apart from the obvious information leak. Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060403043711.GB76193>