Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:8625 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24359 invoked by uid 1010); 19 Mar 2004 21:13:52 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24303 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 21:13:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO colo.lerdorf.com) (66.198.51.121) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 21:13:52 -0000 Received: from rasmus2.corp.yahoo.com (rasmus2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.233.18]) by colo.lerdorf.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with ESMTP id i2JLDo3x031559; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:13:50 -0800 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:13:45 -0800 (PST) X-X-Sender: rasmus@thinkpad.lerdorf.com To: Ilia Alshanetsky cc: internals@lists.php.net, boulat@funio.com In-Reply-To: <200403191609.28127.ilia@prohost.org> Message-ID: References: <61700.66.158.132.127.1079718509.squirrel@www.funio.com> <200403191602.17011.ilia@prohost.org> <200403191609.28127.ilia@prohost.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on colo Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] new security related directive for php-4.3.4 From: rasmus@php.net (Rasmus Lerdorf) On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > On March 19, 2004 04:05 pm, you wrote: > > If you are using open_basedir at all, you have already given up all hope > > of any sort of performance. > > Certainly, but this would make the existing situation much worse then it > already is. Ideally fastcgi or ap2 should be used where it is possible to > make the web server processes run under the user's account hence avoiding the > needed for open_basedir, safe_mode, etc... all together. The code could easily be written such that there is virtually no performance degradation unless the dir actually contains a {} component, so I don't buy that argument. We are always trading convenience for performance here. -Rasmus