thank you
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:54:37PM -0300, Noilson Caio wrote:
> > thank you so much Mr. Wooledge. i guess that BUG is a strong word for
> this
> > case. i fully agree about "his is not a bash bug. It's a
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:54:37PM -0300, Noilson Caio wrote:
> thank you so much Mr. Wooledge. i guess that BUG is a strong word for this
> case. i fully agree about "his is not a bash bug. It's a problem with your
> approach.", actuality that's my preoccupation. can you help me to
> understand
On 3/20/17 2:54 PM, Noilson Caio wrote:
> i have afraid that a non-root user can
> compromise a linux box intentionally. the memory needs be eaten until other
> threshold can break it.
This is why per-process resource limits exist.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Noilson Caio wrote:
> Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
> Machine: x86_64
> OS: linux-gnu
> Compiler: gcc
> Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64'
> -DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu'