From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 9 21:29:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A73616A4CE; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:29:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3CF43D2F; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:29:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i99LTqCH009074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:29:53 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i99LTqTn009073; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:29:52 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:29:52 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Andrea Campi Message-ID: <20041009212952.GA8922@cell.sick.ru> References: <200410082115.i98LFLMU034965@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041009153916.GA2003@webcom.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041009153916.GA2003@webcom.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen syslog.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:29:56 -0000 On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +0200, Andrea Campi wrote: A> Unless I'm missing something, this would make the calling application A> loop for an unbounded time (potentially forever), thus making the DoS A> even more effective. Personally, I've never thought of syslog as a A> reliable service, and I'm quite sure I prefer to lose messages but A> keep my apps running than the opposite. If an application needs a A> failsafe logging mechanism, chances are it will use something else A> anyway. Not forever. Actually this change can make applications work slower, when syslogd is DoSed. Anyway when an attacker is flooding syslog with messages your machine is _already_ slower, since syslogd consumes all CPU and IO resources. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE