Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Micha3 Mosiewicz
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
Date
Msg-id 34C17981.81249255@lodz.pdi.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
The Hermit Hacker wrote:

>         Hrmmmm...i don't quite agree with this.  postmaster can handle one
> connection at a time, and then has to pass it off to the postgres backend
> process...DoS attacks are easier now then by forking before HBA.  I just have

Forking is not so bad... but isn't there any exec also? And of course
it's a difference if your machine is overloaded by processes or if it's
only one service that doesn't respond becouse the access-controling code
is disabled.

Second question... if we speak only about forking postmaster, or it's
about forking-execing-opening files-reading-etc stuff? If it's only
fork, I would totally agree with you, otherwise I'm not sure which is
worse...

Mike

--
WWW: http://www.lodz.pdi.net/~mimo  tel: Int. Acc. Code + 48 42 148340
add: Michal Mosiewicz  *  Bugaj 66 m.54 *  95-200 Pabianice  *  POLAND


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...