Date: 24 Jun 2001 18:25:05 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: <js43064n@pace.edu>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Kernel Panic Message-ID: <xzp8zih7sm6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <006001c0fcc9$86301ce0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <006001c0fcc9$86301ce0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> writes: > That's a case I hadn't thought of - however, "local" search paths should > generally be at the END of the user's path, not the beginning, in which case > the system binary gets called first. No! Local paths should be at the beginning, so local binaries (wrappers etc.) can ovverride system binaries. > Both cases are bad practice, and shouldn't be present on a normal system. Bollocks. > I think in that situation you would have to have a swap partition that's > smaller than the maximum amount of ram that a normal user is permitted to > allocate - in that case the limits are set too high. That, or the limits simply don't account for all the resources a user can consume, as is the case with mmap(). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp8zih7sm6.fsf>