[HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"?
Kris Kennaway
kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Apr 3 03:11:59 UTC 2006
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process)
> where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the
> process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess).
>
> If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
> their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally hides the
> existence of the other process, and therefore having some calls that
> pretend it's not there is simply inconsistent.
I'm guessing it's a deliberate change to prevent the information
leakage between jails.
Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20060403/94d5d3b6/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list