Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:53:21 +0300 (MSK)
From:      =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To:        Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
Cc:        Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Inetd & login class bug (was Re: cvs commit: src/etc master.passwd)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.971027214539.1187A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
In-Reply-To: <199710271841.LAA01233@rocky.mt.sri.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Nate Williams wrote:

> [ Moved to -current from cvs-committers ]
> 
> " fingerd uses up all the resources that Apache needs "

No. Inetd assumes that nobody have some particular limits (which is
against Mark nobody definition) and run fingerd with this limits.

> > I am not sure, how to fix inetd at this time, maybe we need to handle
> > nobody name specially (and use daemon limits in this case), or maybe
> > just use daemon limits for _all_ entries in inetd.conf...
> > Any ideas?
> 
> I think that every new process spawned from inetd should have it's own
> 'private' nobody limits, and not 'share' a set of limits for every
> process spawned from inetd.

Please explain, I not understand well what you say.

Some time ago inetd runs all process with the limits it was started by rc,
i.e. daemon class limits. Recently it was changed to take user field from
inetd.conf and set this user limits (which is wrong for nobody case since
we can't suppose some particular limits there).

Right now I think checking for nobody name and set default daemon limits
will be enough solution. 

-- 
Andrey A. Chernov
<ache@nietzsche.net>
http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971027214539.1187A-100000>