Re: semaphore usage "port based"?

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