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 l
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 zer
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]
S
> > > 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
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.
>
>
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 eff
> 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
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:
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
compe
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 de
[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 pre
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
