[HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"?

[Tom Lane]

Kris Kennaway <kris at 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
... 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.  Sorry Marc :-(

			regards, tom lane