On Sun, 21.06.09 19:14, Paul Davis (paul@email-addr-hidden) wrote:
> of course, the name of lennart's new feature doesn't make it entirely
> clear whether or not "fork" is equivalent to its "real" linux
> implementation: clone. if it were not, then you could create an "RT
> thread bomb" instead of a "fork bomb". i only did a quick reading of
> his patch and in the context of the patch its not clear whether it
> applies to every instance of clone() (i.e. thread or task creation) or
> just plain fork().
The distinction between a thread/clone() and a process/fork() bomb
doesn't really matter. What matters is that you can kill() processes
and make the whole issue go away in one step even if that process has
one gazillion threads and wants to create even more.
Lennart
-- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Mon Jun 22 04:15:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 22 2009 - 04:15:05 EEST