Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the reasoning here is to alert the administrator(s) to the
> possibility
> that somebody has just tried a fork-bomb. A better test, IMHO, would be to
> check how fast the processes are being spawned and whether a large
> percentage
> share t
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 07:34:09 Simon Arlott wrote:
> On Tue, June 12, 2007 18:32, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Jun 12 2007 10:04, Roland Dreier wrote:
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * following code does not allow Non Root User to cross its
> >> > process + * limit. it alerts admin
On Tue, June 12, 2007 18:32, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jun 12 2007 10:04, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > + /*
>> > + * following code does not allow Non Root User to cross its
>> > process
>> > + * limit. it alerts administrator about fork bombing attack and
>> > prevents
>> > +
On Jun 12 2007 10:04, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * following code does not allow Non Root User to cross its process
> > + * limit. it alerts administrator about fork bombing attack and
> > prevents
> > + * it.
> > + */
> > if (atomic_read(&p->user->p
> +/*
> + * following code does not allow Non Root User to cross its process
> + * limit. it alerts administrator about fork bombing attack and
> prevents
> + * it.
> + */
> if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >=
> p->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rl
Hello All
As per the discussion in the thread with subject as
Patch Related with Fork Bombing Attack on LKML, I request you for the
inclusion of my attached patch named "fork.patch".
Summery of the Patch:
This patch warns the administrator about the fork bombing attack
(whenever any
6 matches
Mail list logo
