Re: Support for "pshared" POSIX semaphores

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>]

> On Feb 4, 2019, at 6:36 PM, SODA Noriyuki <soda%yuruyuru.net@localhost> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:18:35 -0800, Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost> said:
> 
> The reason why the SUS definition is so nasty is that it implicitly
> assumes pshared semaphore (and pshared mutex) will be implemented
> on top of shared memory.  And the security problem won't happen
> in that case (because random processes cannot share same memory).
> 
> How about using such implementation?  Although it requires symbol
> versioning due to the sem_t size change..

I’m currently mulling over another implementation that would not require changing the sem_t ABI.

-- thorpej