[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: forkbombing Linux distributions
    Natanael Copa napisał(a):
    > On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 01:46 +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
    >>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:28:20 +0200, Matthieu Castet
    >><> wrote:
    >>>>The memory limits aren't good enough either: if you set them low
    >>>>enough that memory-forkbombs are unperilous for
    >>>>RLIMIT_NPROC*RLIMIT_DATA, it's probably too low for serious
    >>>yes, if you want to run application like you need at
    >>>least 200Mo. If you want that your system is usable, you need at least 40 process per user. So 40*200 = 8Go, and it don't think you have all this memory...
    >>>I think per user limit could be a solution.
    >>>attached a small fork-memory bombing.
    >>Doesn't do anything on my machine:
    >># ulimits -a
    > ...
    >>it tops at 100 processes and eats a little CPU... although the system
    >>is under load, it's completely responsive.
    > 100 processes is low. I often have over 150.

    On desktop system 150 processes is low too. 250 is safe and sufficient

    > I use the patch mentioned here:
    > (it set the default max_threads and RLIMIT_NPROC to half of the current
    > default)
    > and my system survived. didn't when nearly all users start forkbombing!

    I think that changing the default max_threads is not a good idea. It
    might solve many problems but forkbombing require something more universal.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.028 / U:8.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site