From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 28 9:28:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7114F14C3E; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:28:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #4) id 1230Q3-0007FT-00; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:28:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:28:21 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Mike Smith Cc: Kip Macy , "Mr. K." , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic In-Reply-To: <199912280630.WAA01257@mass.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Mike Smith wrote: > > > I was not root when this happened, so, basically, you're saying that > > > freebsd is not meant for a production environment where untrusted users > > > have telnet access? > > > > As far as I can tell, yes. Until default per user mbuf limitations or some > > such thing is in place no amount of mbufs will prevent intentionally bad > > code from downing the machine. My understanding is that this was not a > > problem in 2.x. > > It's a fundamental problem with the BSD mbuf architecture. It's not > something that as many people were seeing with 2.2 simply because people > weren't pushing systems as hard back then. Back then? People were running the same junk back then as they are now. In fact, I still have a _lot_ of 2.2 systems around, some that are woefully overloaded, but they never panic. Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message