Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 23:11:57 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"? Message-ID: <20060403031157.GA57914@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <27417.1144033691@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <26524.1144026385@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060402222843.X947@ganymede.hub.org> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process) > where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the > process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess). >=20 > If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert > their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally hides the > existence of the other process, and therefore having some calls that > pretend it's not there is simply inconsistent. I'm guessing it's a deliberate change to prevent the information leakage between jails. Kris --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEMJJ9Wry0BWjoQKURAs9eAKDmVi9fEZoLyIcTQGCVCt7J6pgL8ACeN7/c vT2THLoKPfsjmy7V6pfk/Q4= =Yu3f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060403031157.GA57914>