linux-kernel - Re: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20071117165325.3e5f571a.diegocg@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:53:25 +0100
From:	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>
To:	Martin Olsson <mnemo@...imum.se>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dane Mutters <dmutters@...il.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?

El Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:42:51 -0800, Martin Olsson <mnemo@...imum.se> escribió:

> I don't think that setting a max process count by default is a 
> good/viable solution. 

I don't see why...OS X had a default limit of 100 processes per uid (increased
to 266 in 10.5) and "it works" (many people notices it, but it's not surprising
since the limit is too restrictive).

If you don't have limits, you can't avoid starvation easily. From my experience,
since I use CFS, fork/compile bombs (forgetting to put a number after make -j...)
are very sluggish mainly because the whole graphic subsystem is paged out.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/