From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 10 1: 5:16 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C28C37B638 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:05:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A8VdT27768; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:31:39 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bjoern Fischer Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: efficiency of maxproc hardlimit Message-ID: <20000410013139.R4381@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000410094436.A778@frolic.no-support.loc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000410094436.A778@frolic.no-support.loc>; from bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE on Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:44:36AM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Bjoern Fischer [000410 01:15] wrote: > Hello, > > up till now I was convinced that a proper /etc/login.conf > provides enough protection against silly dos efforts like > fork bombs. > > Well, while a hard maxproc of 64 protects very well against > > echo '#!/bin/sh > a & > a &' > a; chmod 755 a; ./a > > but it fails to prevent that this > > main(){fork();main();} > > leaves the machine in an unusable state (it does ping > back, one may break into the kernel debugger, but no > io). > > Any way to prevent this (without harming the user)? Please reread the documentation on limits. cputime unlimited filesize unlimited datasize 256MB <- stacksize 64MB <- coredumpsize unlimited memoryuse unlimited memorylocked unlimited maxproc 4115 descriptors 8232 sockbufsize unlimited If appropriate limits are in place and you still get problems then let us know. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message