Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:34:08 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: "Dr. Markus Waldeck" <waldeck@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: top delay value Message-ID: <17856.54032.973691.182086@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20070131170241.230960@gmx.net> References: <200701311442.l0VEgQbA093491@lurza.secnetix.de> <20070131170241.230960@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20070131170241.230960@gmx.net>, Dr. Markus Waldeck <waldeck@gmx.de> typed: > > > > typing "while :; do :; done". There are a thousand ways > > > No. What I write above is not a "fork bomb", it's a single > > process which is wasting CPU in a busy loop. It's exactly > > equivalent to top(1) with zero delay, except that top > > produces some output, while a busy loop does nothing useful > > at all. > > I tested different shells and I found out that an exlicit sub shell > is required to let the shell fork: > > while :; do (:); done That's still not a fork bomb. While it creates a process every time through the loop, the process exits before the loop continues, so you've still got just a few processes. Basicaly, it's still a busy loop. A true fork bomb creates an ever-increasing number of processes, typically by forking copies of itself (which led to them being called "rabbit jobs" when I first ran into one). <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17856.54032.973691.182086>