Re: semaphore usage "port based"?

On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > By default SysV shared memory is disallowed in jails.
>
> Hm, the present problem seems to be about semaphores not shared memory

Sorry, I meant IPC.

> ... although I'd not be surprised to find that there's a similar issue
> around shared memory.  Anyway, if FBSD's position is that they are
> uninterested in supporting SysV IPC in connection with jails, then I
> think the Postgres project position has to be that we are uninterested
> in supporting Postgres inside FBSD jails.

No-one is taking a position of being "uninterested", so please don't
be hasty to reciprocate.

Kris