Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"?

Kris Kennaway <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
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.

I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it
correctly. This example shows that each jail must have its own SysV
semaphore key space, else information leaks anyway. The current
situation breaks Postgres, and therefore I suggest reverting the errno
change until you are prepared to fix the SysV IPC stuff to be per-jail.

regards, tom lane
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • jail2 patchset 12
    ... Some time ago I finished the next public jail2 patchset. ... jail2 supports per-jail SYSV IPC namespaces. ... It is possible to configure which jails can and which cannot use ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"?
    ... existence of the other process, and therefore having some calls that ... pretend it's not there is simply inconsistent. ... By default SysV shared memory is disallowed in jails. ...
    (freebsd-stable)