Dr. Markus Waldeck wrote:
Oliver Fromme 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 describe
typing while :; do :; done. There are a thousand ways
No. What I write above is not a fork bomb, it's a single
process which is wasting CPU in a busy loop. It's exactly
equivalent to top(1) with zero delay, except that top
produces some output, while a busy loop does nothing useful
at
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:42:26PM +0100 I heard the voice of
Oliver Fromme, and lo! it spake thus:
Bottom line: Disabling zero-delay in top doesn't buy you anything
at all.
Meanwhile, you still can't zero-delay unless you're root.
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dr. Markus Waldeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
typing while :; do :; done. There are a thousand ways
No. What I write above is not a fork bomb, it's a single
process which is wasting CPU in a busy loop. It's exactly
equivalent to top(1) with zero delay, except
On 1/31/07, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dr. Markus Waldeck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
typed:
typing while :; do :; done. There are a thousand ways
No. What I write above is not a fork bomb, it's a single
process which is wasting CPU in a busy loop. It's exactly
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
