Zhukov Pavel wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 5:52 PM, Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Zhukov Pavel wrote:why modern fedora affected by simple forkbomb attack?Because it's hard to set static defaults that are reasonable for both a low-end laptop and a 16-core server with 128 GB of RAM. Theoretically we could configure the defaults in limits.conf dynamically at installation time, but no one has ever cared enough to write the code and test it on the wide range of hardware and software configurations required to get it right. Personally, I find the current settings work just fine. The only way I can forkbomb my old 384 MB, 1-core powerbook is with a synthetic forkbomb, and the fix for it is "don't do that". It survives an accidental forkbomb, such as those caused by foolish application handler settings. If you're running arbitrary code from untrusted users, a forkbomb is the least of your problems. On my 2-core, 2 GB systems, which is a reasonable minimum target for interactive servers allowing logins by semi-trusted users, I can't even synthetically forkbomb the box without root privileges. The most I can do is lock up my X server, which is cured by a remote ssh and a kill. This might be what's happening to you. If you think there's something really wrong, please open a bug with specifics. -- Chris -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listhm. for example, can i keep in reserve for example 5% of system resources for root user?
If you mean CPU time, this is precisely what the upstream group scheduler work will do. It's a work in progress.
i just successfully DoS C2D5600/2GB laptop with simple :(){ :|:& };:
Did you try switching virtual terminals with ctrl-alt-f*, killing X with ctrl-alt-backspace (assuming it's running in an xterm), or sshing in remotely? The most I can do on a similar machine is hang X.
-- Chris -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
