Hi,
It seems that some symbols in libc is resolved by libc entities
which is linked with RTLD to implement it.
% nm -D ld-elf.so.1
...
000158ec T mmap
c4fc W mprotect
c4dc W munmap
...
And running Flash9 with Symbol Versioning-aware Linux Plugin Wrapper
shows that mmap cannot be
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:00:46 +0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
It seems that some symbols in libc is resolved by libc entities
which is linked with RTLD to implement it.
% nm -D ld-elf.so.1
...
000158ec T mmap
c4fc W mprotect
c4dc W munmap
...
It doesn't. rtld is a special
Hello,
An unprivileged user could waste all CPU time by setting a low delay value in
top (interactive or via -s).
Is there any possibility to deactivate this functionality without recompilation?
There are other top implementations that use a secure mode configuration
which avoids the setting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An unprivileged user could waste all CPU time by setting a low delay
value in top (interactive or via -s).
Well, an unprivileged user can achieve the same effect by
typing while :; do :; done. There are a thousand ways
to waste CPU time, and there is no way to
In the last episode (Jan 30), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
An unprivileged user could waste all CPU time by setting a low delay
value in top (interactive or via -s).
Are you sure? In 6.2 at least, s0 in interactive mode results in a
1-second delay, and top -s0 prints
top: warning: seconds delay
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
An unprivileged user could waste all CPU time by setting a low delay value in
top (interactive or via -s).
No, they can't. Should they use the interactive facility to set the
delay to 0 (you can't do that via the -s switch), then top will
compete
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jan 30), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
An unprivileged user could waste all CPU time by setting a low delay
value in top (interactive or via -s).
Are you sure? In 6.2 at least, s0 in interactive mode results in a
1-second delay, and top -s0 prints
top:
Well, an unprivileged user can achieve the same effect by
typing while :; do :; done. There are a thousand ways
to waste CPU time, and there is no way to prevent a user
from doing it.
It is not the same effect.
You describe fork bombing.
Many forked processes eat up the CPU.
I could limit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:23:50PM +0100, Dr. Markus Waldeck wrote:
Well, an unprivileged user can achieve the same effect by
typing while :; do :; done. There are a thousand ways
to waste CPU time, and there is no way to prevent a user
from doing it.
It is not the same effect.
You
MPICH2 has the ability to use shared memory as one of
its communication channel. Unfortuantely, the build
dies with an error realted to ptrace. In looking at
a linux manpage for ptrace, I've identified that the
linux PTRACE_ATTACH and PTRACE_DETACH are equilavent to
out PT_ATTACH and PT_DETACH.
Previously when I asked this question it turned out to not be as
necessary as I thought. However, I now need a way to pin/bind a
user-space thread to a processor until I'm done with it as my
timing constraints are too tight to account for.
I checked sys/sched.h, sys/proc.h, pthread.h, and
Hi,
In a recent attempt in trying to clean up some compiler warnings in a
GNUstep related project i came upon a case where the FreeBSD datatypes
seemed to disagree with the Linux ones. Though this in itself is not
unusual i do wonder if in this case the Linux definition isn't the more
proper
12 matches
Mail list logo
