Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:54:04 +0100 (CET) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: rick-freebsd2009@kiwi-computer.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, jhs@berklix.com, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: limits for run away Firefox ? Message-ID: <201001192154.o0JLs4oS070881@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <20100119201351.GA76360@keira.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rick C. Petty wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:43PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 01/18/10 11:29, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > Doug Barton wrote: > > > > On 01/17/10 17:07, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > > > Hi hackers > > > > > I'm tired of my X server occasionaly freezing, swap thrasing, & firefox dumps: > > > > > 4,346,937,344 ~/firefox-bin.core > > > > > so as a temporary cludge I ran > > > > > touch ~/firefox-bin.core ; chmod 000 ~/firefox-bin.core > > > > > > > > Sorry I don't have a solution to your actual problem, but a better way > > > > to deal with this is to do: ln -s /dev/null ~/firefox-bin.core > > > > > > I think not generating a core dump at all is better than > > > writing 4 GB to /dev/null. > > > > A) The method I proposed is useful for other things too, and as you > > pointed out it can sometimes be difficult to track down all the ways a > > given thing is started. > > What about just adding the limit command to the /usr/local/bin/firefox > script? That would guarantee any instantiation of firefox wouldn't dump > core. Many users probably don't want any core dumps at all, so disabling them completely would be the best and easiest solution for them. This can be done globally (either with the sysctl or via /etc/login.conf) or per-user via ~/.login_conf. Then you don't have to track down the ways a given thing is started. > > B) If we're going to be snarky, it would be far better if it didn't need > > to dump core in the first place. :) > > I don't think that Oliver was at all snarky. The word "snarky" isn't even in my dictionary, so I can only guess what it means. Anyway, my suggestion was meant to be completely serious, without any irony or other undertone. I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe my words expressed a meaning that wasn't intended. In that case please allow me to apologize. > But I agree that it would be nice to prevent ffox from segfaulting; Definitely. I agree, too. However, that's a lot more difficult than preventing core dumps being written. > unfortunately this is one of those apps which segfaults a lot (for me at > least). =) One of the reasons why I prefer Opera. :) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "C++ is over-complicated nonsense. And Bjorn Shoestrap's book a danger to public health. I tried reading it once, I was in recovery for months." -- Cliff Sarginson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201001192154.o0JLs4oS070881>