From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 3 15: 6:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from espresso.q9media.com (espresso.q9media.com [216.254.138.122]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1C437B417 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:06:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mike@localhost) by espresso.q9media.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g13N2DZ08920; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:02:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:02:13 -0500 From: Mike Barcroft To: Mike Makonnen Cc: Gaspar Chilingarov , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fork rate limit Message-ID: <20020203180213.B6496@espresso.q9media.com> References: <20020202201551.GA89061@mail.web.am> <200202022052.g12KqOM17214@apollo.backplane.com> <20020202223546.GA430@mail.web.am> <200202030754.g137saC40573@blackbox.pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200202030754.g137saC40573@blackbox.pacbell.net>; from mike_makonnen@yahoo.com on Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:54:36PM -0800 Organization: The FreeBSD Project Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Makonnen writes: > On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:35:46 +0400 > Gaspar Chilingarov wrote: > > > I've got such situation on our free shellbox set up in the > > university - some newbies were kidding with old while(1) fork(); > > attack. Finnaly they got hit by memory limits set up for each > > user, but anyway they were taking a lot of processor time. I > > prefer to limit some uid's ability to do many forks in some > > short period - like 'no more than 200 forks in 10 seconds' or > > smthng like this. > > Lock them out of the box for a while. If they do it again ban them > forever. The students will learn pretty quickly not to do such things. He should be able to pick his own administrative policy. > This means less work for you, and no need to continuously maintain diffs > against the kernel sources. IMO it's a *very,very* bad thing to > introduce changes into the kernel that might introduce unintended side > effects when the problem can be solved administratively. Obviously he is intending his changes to be committed; hence, the patches will be applicable to -CURRENT. This is an area where FreeBSD is lacking. I can't understand why you wish to stifle his work. Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message