mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Forking shell bombs
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:10:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030709211055.GI1031@dbz.icequake.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F0C2FCB.8060304@blue-labs.org>


Hi David,

On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:07:55AM -0400, David Ford wrote:
> No such thing exists.  I can have 10,000 processes doing nothing and 
> have a load average of 0.00.  I can have 100 processes each sucking cpu 
> as fast as the electrons flow and have a dead box.

Well, like I said, in this specific case we talk about a fork bomb, not
a bunch of idle processes.  My question is what the upper limit to set,
in order to ensure that processes that do nothing but "while (1)
fork();" do not take down the system.  Apparently 2047 is too high for
2.4.21, at least on my system.  But, a slower box manages a 2047 ulimit
fine with a 2.4.20 kernel.

> Learn how to manage resource limits and you can tuck another feather 
> into your fledgeling sysadmin hat ;)

I already know how to manage the limits, but I am asking why the system
seems to hang indefinitely when a maximum of 2047 is set, but not when
e.g. 1500 is set.  Do you have any idea?  Why would there be such a
large change in behavior with such a small change in parameter?

Furthermore, why does my (slower, 600 < 800mhz) system running 2.4.20
kill off a fork bomb at a 2047 ulimit instantaneously, but 2.4.21 takes
half an hour or more, at which point I give up?

-- 
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

  reply	other threads:[~2003-07-09 20:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-08 20:28 Ryan Underwood
2003-07-08 20:37 ` vlad
2003-07-08 20:43 ` jhigdon
2003-07-08 21:25   ` Ryan Underwood
2003-07-08 22:43     ` Sir Ace
2003-07-09 15:07     ` David Ford
2003-07-09 21:10       ` Ryan Underwood [this message]
2003-07-13  9:10       ` Riley Williams
2003-07-13  9:40         ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-07-13 14:17         ` Gene Heskett
2003-07-08 21:59   ` system_lists
2003-07-08 17:18     ` Max Valdez
2003-07-08 22:25       ` Alan Cox
2003-07-08 22:26       ` Svein Ove Aas
2003-07-08 22:51   ` Ryan Underwood
2003-07-10 12:32   ` Luiz Capitulino
2003-07-08 23:05 ` Wakko Warner
2003-07-09 11:36 ` Michael Buesch
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-09 11:05 Arvind Kandhare
2003-07-08 22:26 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-07-08 18:45 Ryan Underwood
2003-07-08 18:55 ` Charles Cazabon
2003-07-08 22:01   ` Alan Cox
2003-07-08 19:23 ` jhigdon
2003-07-08 20:35 ` vlad

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030709211055.GI1031@dbz.icequake.net \
    --to=nemesis-lists@icequake.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®