Message-ID: <47456FFC.5090806@davidnewall.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:33:08 +1030
From: David Newall <david@davidnewall.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ubuntu@bugabundo.net, Ubuntu-reply@bugabundo.net,
       ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?
References: <473E815F.30900@minimum.se> <20071116213137.6efe3f9e@the-village.bc.nu> <473E9290.3040006@minimum.se> <200711220005.32569.Ubuntu@bugabundo.net>
In-Reply-To: <200711220005.32569.Ubuntu@bugabundo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 872
Lines: 16

(``-_-??) -- Fernando wrote:
> I used to see stuff like this happening on my University students test servers. Once they started doing forks inside for(;;), the server would go down.
> Then they replaced the servers by vwmare machines, and now reboots are faster.
>   

UNIX (and Linux) already has a feature for use in case of forkbombs, 
namely keeping a shell available, at a high priority, from which you 
manage a wide range of undesired situations.  There isn't, that I know 
of, any program which responds to a magic key and does the work, but I 
think it can be written without requiring any additional kernel support.

-
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/