On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote:
> > This means less work for you, and no need to continuously maintain diffs > > against the kernel sources. IMO it's a *very,very* bad thing to > > introduce changes into the kernel that might introduce unintended side > > effects when the problem can be solved administratively. > > Obviously he is intending his changes to be committed; hence, the > patches will be applicable to -CURRENT. This is an area where FreeBSD > is lacking. I can't understand why you wish to stifle his work. BTW, many sites find the per-uid process limits helpful in preventing fork bombs from crippling the site. The default configuration may not be sufficiently agressive, and while it's not the same as a rate limit, it does have the effect of topping them. If there is a strong desire for rate-limiting, slotting it into the current resource handling code shouldn't be hard at all -- the state can be stored in uidinfo. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
