Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:14:12 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@freebsd.org> Cc: Mike Makonnen <mike_makonnen@yahoo.com>, Gaspar Chilingarov <nm@web.am>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fork rate limit Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020203221240.34548B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20020203180213.B6496@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > > 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. BTW, many sites find the per-uid process limits helpful in preventing fork bombs from crippling the site. The default configuration may not be sufficiently agressive, and while it's not the same as a rate limit, it does have the effect of topping them. If there is a strong desire for rate-limiting, slotting it into the current resource handling code shouldn't be hard at all -- the state can be stored in uidinfo. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020203221240.34548B-100000>