On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Civileme wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:34:12 -0800
> From: Civileme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [expert] backround processes
>
>
>
> Deryk Barker wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Janar Kokk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > > I think you didn't understood my question.
> > >
> > > I want to not allow my machine's users to run any backround processes such
> > > as eggdrop etc
> >
> > You can use ulimit to limit the number of processes, but don't set it
> > to 1 or they won't be able to run *anything* - bash (and other shells)
> > fork a new process for each command.
>
> And, to worsen matters, how would they run some of the ordinary programs that use
> background processes? I think it might be a bit to embedded to exclude. OTOH,
> if you have a list of what you do not want users to run... Easily done with
> permissions.
>
If I remember correctly, ulimit has a rather poor manpage. It can control
mem usage/processes, but is enforced by your shell(bash). I was trying to
use it to control runaway processes such as Netscape, and nasty cookbook
lockups such as a fork bomb or malloc bomb. I think that if
a program tries to fork bomb in a clever way, or a malloc bomb, it may be
able to act faster than the shell can stop it.
> And with ulimit, what about netscape? It runs as a child of a library process
> and each netscape window .... Errrk. Guess you wouldn't have asked if it was
> easy to figure out :-}.
>
> Civileme
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Ellick Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 11
