On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:19 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Fernando
> > Lopez-Lezcano<nando@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > > Hmmm, did Lennart specifically answer the issue of the clone bomb? I
> > > can't remember and the thread is looong (I had a couple of points that I
> > > made that seemed to be valid and never got a confirmation reply)...
> >
> > i believe he claimed the watchdog deals with this.
This is what I think is the relevant part of his answer:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 17:26 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> What SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK fixes is that a process cannot fork() (as in
> process) to evade the kill() of a supervisor process.
>
> Without this flag you always have a race where the killer process
> would have a hard time killing a process that is duplicating itself
> exponentially.
>
> What matter is that to put an end to the thread bomb process all we
> need to do is one call to kill().
Hmmm, so fork bombs are more difficult (impossible?) to eradicate without
the SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK patch), thread bombs are done with one kill
one way or the other, would that be correct?
And the watchdog deals with both.
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jun 24 08:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 24 2009 - 08:15:03 EEST