Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758876AbXKQPah (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:30:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752244AbXKQPa3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:30:29 -0500 Received: from rhun.apana.org.au ([64.62.148.172]:4084 "EHLO arnor.apana.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbXKQPa2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:30:28 -0500 From: Herbert Xu To: andi@firstfloor.org (Andi Kleen) Subject: Re: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs? Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, peterz@infradead.org, dmutters@gmail.com, mnemo@minimum.se, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Organization: Core In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: apana.lists.os.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.17-rc4 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:28:47 +0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1017 Lines: 23 Andi Kleen wrote: > > Pretty much all the per process limits would need to be per uid to be really > useful in general. I'm hoping that we'll get some of that out of the recent You've hit the nail on the head. I've always liked to have per-uid limits on network sockets too as otherwise you either have to cope with some rogue user taking all your TCP memory away or worse all of your kernel memory. Luckily the former isn't fatal because each TCP socket has a guaranteed 4K so they will still operate but it's still suboptimal. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/