"Heusden, Folkert van" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/05/2001 03:45:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Amol Lad/HSS)
Subject: RE: random PIDs
> Finished & tested my random PID kernel/fork.c:get_pid() replacement.
> > This one keeps
>
> M> IIRC get_pid will loop forever if it doesn't find a free pid, and in the
> M> worst case you can trigger that with ~11000 running threads.
>
> Ah, ok. But why would you have 11.000 running threads?
Denial of Service attack. 11000 processes and the kernel locks up hard,
regardless of t
> Finished & tested my random PID kernel/fork.c:get_pid() replacement.
> > This one keeps track of the last N (default is 64) pids who have exited.
> > These are then not used. So, one cannot have more then 32767 - (64 + 1
> > (init) + 1 (idle)) = 32761 processes :o)
> DW> Huh, should be 3270
> Finished & tested my random PID kernel/fork.c:get_pid() replacement.
> > This one keeps track of the last N (default is 64) pids who have exited.
> > These are then not used. So, one cannot have more then 32767 - (64 + 1
> > (init) + 1 (idle)) = 32761 processes :o)
> DW> Huh, should be 3270
> Finished & tested my random PID kernel/fork.c:get_pid() replacement.
> This one keeps track of the last N (default is 64) pids who have exited.
> These are then not used. So, one cannot have more then 32767 - (64 + 1
> (init) + 1 (idle)) = 32761 processes :o)
DW> Huh, should be 32701, right?!
Y
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:17:45PM +0200, Heusden, Folkert van wrote:
> Finished & tested my random PID kernel/fork.c:get_pid() replacement.
> This one keeps track of the last N (default is 64) pids who have exited.
> These are then not used. So, one cannot have more then 32767 - (64 + 1
> (init)
6 matches
Mail list logo
