Re: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux?
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d1c29ca0-eddf-4a83-a238-c30759b08f77@www.fastmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux? (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, at 15:19, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 5:43 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.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. > > > > On macOS, failures are extremely common. Sometimes I have to run > > simple tests many times to get even one success. The proposal on the > > table won't help with that problem since it's Linux-specific, but if > > there's any way to do something similar on macOS it would be a _huge_ > > help. > > Yeah, make check always fails for me on macOS 11. With the attached > experimental hack, it fails only occasionally (1 in 8 runs or so). I > don't know why. I suspect you'd need to use the hack in pg_ctl to make it reliable. The layout of normally stayed position independent postmastercan be incompatible with the non ASLR spawned child. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: