[Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #4694: Jailed FreeBSD needs BOOST_INTERPROCESS_FILESYSTEM_BASED_POSIX_SHARED_MEMORY

Subject: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #4694: Jailed FreeBSD needs BOOST_INTERPROCESS_FILESYSTEM_BASED_POSIX_SHARED_MEMORY
From: Boost C++ Libraries (noreply_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-29 14:19:41

#4694: Jailed FreeBSD needs
BOOST_INTERPROCESS_FILESYSTEM_BASED_POSIX_SHARED_MEMORY
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  Jim Bell <jim@…>            |       Owner:  igaztanaga  
     Type:  Bugs                        |      Status:  new         
Milestone:  To Be Determined            |   Component:  interprocess
  Version:  Boost 1.44.0                |    Severity:  Problem     
 Keywords:  FreeBSD jail                |  
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Note that one of the FreeBSD test platforms is failing many interprocess
 tests (both trunk and release), while the other passes.  The one failing
 is in a
 [http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html

 Jailed] environment (the other one isn't), and all failures seem to
 involve "access denied" (EPERM).

 Jails deliberately impose
 [http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/arch-handbook/jail-

 restrictions.html some restrictions on shared memory].

 If I modify BOOST_INTERPROCESS_FILESYSTEM_BASED_POSIX_SHARED_MEMORY
 (defined in interprocess/detail/workaround.hpp, lines 102) to be defined
 under __FreeBSD__ <= 8, I'm able to change a test from failing to passing.

 I'm not sure there's a way to tell if we're in a jail during compile. And
 even if we could, there would be a binary compatibility issue moving an
 executable built in a non-jailed environment to a jailed one.

 Is there a benefit to having this flag set one way or the other?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4694>
Boost C++ Libraries <http://www.boost.org/>
Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.