| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux? |
| Date: | 2021-08-09 17:54:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3523173.1628531665@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-08-09 13:43:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> How common is to get a failure? I know I've run tests under
> EXEC_BACKEND and not seen any failures. Not many runs though.
> I get check-world failures in about 1/2-1/3 of the runs, and a plain check
> fails in maybe 1/4 of the cases. It's pretty annoying because it often isn't
> trivial to distinguish whether I've broken something or whether it's
> randomization related...
I don't have numbers, but I do know that on Linux EXEC_BACKEND builds fail
often enough to be annoying if you don't disable ASLR. If we can do
something not-too-invasive about that, it'd be great.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2021-08-09 18:00:02 | Re: Tab completion for CREATE SCHEMAAUTHORIZATION |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-08-09 17:50:28 | Re: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux? |