Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:26:38 -0400 From: Marca Registrada <inf@nyef.res.cmu.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER Message-ID: <19980428202638.15088@nyef.res.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <19980428143114.33662@mcs.net>; from Karl Denninger on Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 02:31:14PM -0500 References: <199804280030.UAA06099@spooky.rwwa.com> <199804280453.XAA03316@dyson.iquest.net> <19980428073841.05698@mcs.net> <19980428192742.1224.qmail@xcf.berkeley.edu> <19980428143114.33662@mcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Karl Denninger (karl@mcs.net): > Critical programs can either free up resources or exit, as they see fit. We > could also define a semantic that says that if a process set SIGHOLD for > that signal, then the kernel should do everything in its power NOT to whack > that particular process. BTW, I'd like to hope that only processes run as root have this power to elect themselves to be safe from random kills. Actually, is there much of a danger at all? With proper login limits it would take a group of users in a concerted effort to bring teh machine to its knees. It should possibly be a matter of local system policy (sysctl or compile time option) weathor or not SIGDANGER will be maskable by a non-root process, with the default being an open system. BTW, just for my two cents.. could SIGDANGER also be a producable signal (via kill(1)), such that I could say send it to X to have it release unneeded memory? -- - All we hear is internet gaagaa, internet googoo, internet gaagaa 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?19980428202638.15088>