[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean