Re: semaphore usage "port based"?

From: Robert Watson <rwatson(at)FreeBSD(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>, freebsd-stable(at)FreeBSD(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: semaphore usage "port based"?
Date: 2006-04-03 22:40:51
Message-ID: 20060403233826.Q76562@fledge.watson.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2006-04-03 22:51:45 Re: semaphore usage "port based"?
Previous Message Robert Watson 2006-04-03 22:37:33 Re: semaphore usage "port based"?