lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?
    From
    Date
    I thought you might find this helpful.  (I brought this issue up with
    the Slackware folks once, and they told me basically this.)

    http://wiki.craz1.homelinux.com/index.php/Linux:Security:Forkbomb

    I was also told that the ability to spawn such rampant forks/processes
    is controlled by default in Debian. Is this the case?

    Here is an LQ thread where I brought it up:

    http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-security-4/how-can-i-prevent-forkbombs-338560/

    I would like to see something done about this, with Ubuntu as popular as
    it is, even as a server in some cases. Is there a way that in the
    future, one could simply download a package or click a box or something
    and have a limit set, like the links suggest? That would make things
    just "that much" more convenient for system administrators (and might
    help them/us to remember to set these limits, too...).

    Thanks.

    -Dane


    On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 23:04 -0800, Martin Olsson wrote:
    > Sorry about that, I checked the "has security impact" checkbox and that
    > marked it as private by default. This is a very well known problem
    > though so keeping secret certainly does not make sense. I have manually
    > removed the "private" flag now.
    >
    > The content of the bug report was as follows:
    > ---------------------------------------------
    >
    > Repro steps:
    >
    > 1. Install gutsy gibbon (or probably any ubuntu)
    > 2. Start a gnome terminal
    > 3. Run this command:
    >
    > :(){ :|:& };:
    >
    > 4. Ubuntu starts to work furiously, after less than a second terminal
    > gets flooded with "low resources" message, and within a few seconds the
    > whole machine breaks down complete to the point where no a single pixel
    > is updated and the mouse cannot be moved at all. It's not possible to
    > escape to a ALT-Fn console terminal and CTRL-ALT-DEL does not work.
    >
    > Okay, so this is not as bad as winnuke.exe because it's not remote but I
    > just did it on my shared hosting co and their server went down. And I
    > mean seriously, there should be a way for a user to abort stuff that
    > hogs resources this type of complete breakdown is NEVER acceptible. I
    > had to power of the machine and my file system got royally screwed (long
    > fsck etc).
    >
    > Some of you might say this is like the oldest trick in the book, yada
    > yada yada...
    >
    >
    > Martin
    >
    >
    >
    > Alan Cox wrote:
    > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:51:27 -0800
    > > Martin Olsson <mnemo@minimum.se> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Dear kernel hackers,
    > >>
    > >> This is a message from below 0x7FFFFFFF. Please look at this bug (it's
    > >> not a new concept but still):
    > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/163185
    > >
    > > It seems to want people to register to view it. I guess Ubuntu should fix
    > > launchpad then we can see the bug report
    > >
    > > Alan
    > > -
    >
    >

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-17 07:49    [W:0.033 / U:122.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site