Re: shared memory

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/03/15]

From: Eric Wilhelm
Subject: Re: shared memory
Date: 23:50 on 15 Mar 2005
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# Andr=E9 Warnier
# on Tuesday 15 March 2005 05:26 pm:

>On the other hand, mod_perl seems to have some deep interactions with
>the innards of the Apache server, for example direct manipulation of
> the "bucket brigades". =A0How come no-one has come up yet with some
> scheme to "hijack" one of these bucket brigades (or some other
> internal Apache memory area) to provide such a capability ?
>
>Also, for instance, the DBI module and it's companion Apache::DBI
>provide persistent connections to databases. And to my knowledge, they
>are available under Unix as well as Windows. =A0For doing this, there
> must be some form of memory sharing at work, isn't it so ?

The answer to these and all related "why" questions probably contains=20
the word "security".

Any kind of memory sharing between apache processes is a potential hole,=20
so you have to be really careful about how you code it.

I think that what you propose is certainly possible, but it would be a=20
big task to cover all of the vulnerabilities.  So, your best bet is to=20
use something that already exists, and there's been a lot of work done=20
by a lot of people on the DBI, so that's probably where you'll get the=20
most mileage.

You keep saying that you want to share memory, but what you really want=20
to do is share data.  In terms of security, stability, etc. you solve a=20
lot of problems by avoiding shared memory.  With that in mind, try to=20
reframe your problem and you'll probably find that DBI will be the path=20
of least resistance.  There are a few wrapper modules that simplify the=20
interface (some even tied to hashes?) so maybe you want to use one of=20
those if your frustrated by having to speak in SQL to talk to your data=20
structure.

=2D-Eric
=2D-=20
"Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."=20
                                       -- Murphy's Corollary
=2D--------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
=2D--------------------------------------------

(message missing)

shared memory
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= 16:35 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Jonathan Vanasco 16:37 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= 17:07 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= 22:53 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Martin Moss 17:47 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 18:04 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Jonathan Vanasco 19:11 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 19:48 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Dan Sully 19:53 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
jonathan vanasco 00:30 on 17 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Jonathan Vanasco 20:05 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 20:14 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= 22:26 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 22:31 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= 23:26 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Jonathan Vanasco 23:40 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Eric Wilhelm 23:50 on 15 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 00:29 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Scott Gifford 03:29 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
William McKee 14:36 on 18 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 00:30 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
jonathan vanasco 00:40 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 00:50 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Ofer Nave 01:20 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
jonathan vanasco 01:56 on 16 Mar 2005

Re: shared memory
Perrin Harkins 01:06 on 17 Mar 2005

Generated at 16:59 on 18 Mar 2005 by mariachi v0.52