[PATCH] memparse bugfix

2005-07-15 Thread aq
Function lib/cmdline.c:memparse() wrongly calculates the memory if the given string has K/M/G suffix. This patch (against 2.6.13-rc3) fixes the problem. Please apply. Signed-off-by: Nguyen Anh Quynh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # diffstat cmdline.patch cmdline-aq.c |4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 inser

Re: [PATCH] memparse bugfix

2005-07-15 Thread aq
On 7/16/05, Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * aq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Function lib/cmdline.c:memparse() wrongly calculates the memory if the > > given string has K/M/G suffix. This patch (against 2.6.13-rc3) fixes > > the problem. Please apply.

[PATCH] dontdiff file sorted in alphabet order

2005-04-21 Thread aq
hello, The Documentation/dontdiffI file of 2.6.12-rc3 kernel is a little messy. Here is a patch to sort the content of that file in alphabet order. Please apply. # diffstat dontdiff.patch dontdiff | 136 +++ 1 files changed, 68 inser

Re: forkbombing Linux distributions

2005-03-23 Thread aq
rkbomb process, or the parent process (of forkbomb) will be killed after a while (by the kernel) because of "out of memory" error. The problem is that which process would be chosen to kill? (I have no idea on how kernel choose the would-be-kill process). If the kernel choose to kill the

Re: forkbombing Linux distributions

2005-03-23 Thread aq
max_threads = mempages / (8 * THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE); > + max_threads = mempages / (16 * THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE); I dont see any advantages of halving the max_threads like this at all. That doesnt solve the problem. You should focus elsewhere. thank you, aq - To unsubscribe from this

Re: forkbombing Linux distributions

2005-03-23 Thread aq
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:54:18 +0100, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 22:04 +0900, aq wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:37:38 +0100, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This is an example of a program in C my frien

Re: forkbombing Linux distributions

2005-03-23 Thread aq
(!fork()) continue; if (!fork()) continue; > exit(); } } > yep, that is better. but system can still be recovered by killall. a little "sleep" will render the system completely useless, like this: int main() { while(1) { if (!fork()) continue; if (!fork()) continue; sleep(5); exit(0)

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11-rc4-mm1] connector: Add a fork connector

2005-02-25 Thread aq
} > +#endif > + > int nr_processes(void) > { > int cpu; > @@ -1238,6 +1281,8 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags, > if (unlikely (current->ptrace & PT_TRACE_VFORK_DONE)) > ptrace_notify ((PTRACE_EVE