Stephen Hahn wrote: > > * Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-20 18:44]: [snip] > > I really like to see at least RLIMIT_PTHREAD implemented to have a limit > > which prevents applications from running a threaded version of the > > fork()-bomb. > > We already have task.max-lwps, project.max-lwps, and zone.max-lwps. > An RFE to add a process equivalent probably exists, although it seems > superfluous given the set of controls on this resource already > available to the administrator (via project(4) and prctl(1)) and > developer (via setrctl(2)).
IMO neither "task." or "project." are AFAIK sufficient to implement a "safeguard" within an application to prevent it from creating too many threads, e.g. a threaded version of a fork()-bomb. Using "task." or "project." for this is AFAIK not good since it affects eveything in the current "task" or "project" and not only the "current process" ... or am I wrong in this case ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
