On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 12:27, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > > > memory allocation error, but sleep.
> > > 
> > > It doesn't die, it's being killed by the kernel.
> > 
> > No - clamd does a malloc and that fails. Then instead of dying (which would
> > be the proper thing to do IMHO), it sleeps a few microsecs and then tries to
> > malloc the memory again. Infinite loop occurs...
> 
> Ok, THAT's bad - and should be fixed.

If it were true it would be. Please point me at some code in clamd that
does that.

-trog

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to