On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:05:41PM -0300, Friedrich Locke wrote:
> It does not matter what i do, i cannot fork more than +- 1900/2000 process
> on my system. Besides kern.maxproc what else is necessary to fork more
> process ?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Some limits in my system:
>
> etosha# sysc
It does not matter what i do, i cannot fork more than +- 1900/2000 process
on my system. Besides kern.maxproc what else is necessary to fork more
process ?
Thanks in advance.
Some limits in my system:
etosha# sysctl
kern.maxproc=1
kern.maxproc: 1310 -> 1
etosha#
sioux@etosha$ ulimit -a
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
>>As said in "Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" book, when
>> calling a sigaction function there is a siginfo_t * with data about the
>> process sending the signal. On this st
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
>As said in "Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" book, when
> calling a sigaction function there is a siginfo_t * with data about the
> process sending the signal. On this struct, the member int si_pid
> contains the PID of the pro
El 01/05/2010 18:14, Otto Moerbeek escribis:
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
Hi, using 4.6 release.
I'm doing some code on process forking and catching signals on
OpenBSD. My interest here is to catch the SIGCHLD signal and do things
with the pid
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
> Hi, using 4.6 release.
>
> I'm doing some code on process forking and catching signals on
> OpenBSD. My interest here is to catch the SIGCHLD signal and do things
> with the pid which sended the signal on th
Hi, using 4.6 release.
I'm doing some code on process forking and catching signals on
OpenBSD. My interest here is to catch the SIGCHLD signal and do things
with the pid which sended the signal on the function called to treat it.
As said in "Advanced Programming in the Unix E
> Yes, you can use anything as a transport, probably even pidgeon
> carriers, but you need a receiving end to effect anything.
Indeed, see RFCs 1149 and 2549... two excellent april fools
on avian carriers!
> So, unless
> you fear that someone is able to install a trojan on your OpenBSD
> server b
Hi Dag,
I find myself pressed to rant a bit on the myths you spread because I
come across such arguments all too often, and they are, umm, unfounded.
On Sun, 17.12.2006 at 20:03:08 -0800, Dag Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tools can be written to use icmp as a transport, obviously anything
On Monday 18 December 2006 19:29, Jon Radel wrote:
>
> I suppose it all comes down to such unresolvable matters such as "is
> making it harder for outsiders to map your network merely security
> through obscurity, which is naturally below the dignity of any right
> thinking network engineer, or doe
Dag Richards wrote:
> Such a user can use http or
>> better yet https as a transport as well or a floppy, usb hard drive,
>> usb tump
>> drive, and email (especially with an encrypted attachment so that your
>> filter
>> can see what it is). Hell they can print it out and carry it in their
>> br
> smith wrote:
Blocking icmp violates RFC rules which means in a nutshell weird things will
happen on your network.
Buda says :
"Amen... obey RFC 1122. "
RFC compliance is almost always a good reason to do something.
So I have learned something I apparently should already have known.
i.
* Dag Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-18 06:10]:
> I block all inbound traffic to my networks not required for operations.
(most of) icmp qualifies as required for operations. especially
including echo-request and -reply.
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Serv
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:03:08 -0800, Dag Richards wrote
> Jason Dixon wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Dag Richards wrote:
> >
> >> Jason Dixon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Your security staff is clueless. I bet they like to block icmp
> >>> echo- request too.
> >>
> >>
> >> Erm, I am don't think I
Marco S Hyman wrote:
> To me (and I'll be the first to
> admit that this is nothing but opinion and I won't pretend that my opinion
> is any better than yours) I see more harm than good in blocking icmp.
> I like it when other people tell me I've screwed something up because I
> can find it and
> servers with services running we want public. Why should I allow
> someone to ping my dns server?
If I'm having problems resolving a host address that is supposed
to be handled by your server one of the first things I'll do is
see if I have general connectivity to your server. I'll ping it
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:34:20 -0500
Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You don't use icmp echo-request for your network operations? Do you
> think you're gaining something by filtering ping on your firewall?
>
Amen... obey RFC 1122.
3.2.2.6 Echo Request/Reply: RFC-792
On Dec 17, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Dag Richards wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
On Dec 17, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Dag Richards wrote:
Erm, I am don't think I am clueless, often a sign of cluelessness
I am sure ... However. I block inbound icmp, well actually
inbound anything not shown to be required f
Jason Dixon wrote:
On Dec 17, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Dag Richards wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Your security staff is clueless. I bet they like to block icmp
echo- request too.
Erm, I am don't think I am clueless, often a sign of cluelessness I
am sure ... However. I block inbound icmp, well
On Monday 18 December 2006 07:28, Dag Richards wrote:
> What about this is cluelez? I ask in a tone not of belligerence, but a
> desire to be informed by my betters.
Blocking icmp is a) totally pointless, and b) makes troubleshooting much more
difficult.
---
Lars Hansson
On Dec 17, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Dag Richards wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Your security staff is clueless. I bet they like to block icmp
echo- request too.
Erm, I am don't think I am clueless, often a sign of cluelessness I
am sure ... However. I block inbound icmp, well actually inbound
any
Jason Dixon wrote:
On Dec 17, 2006, at 2:51 PM, carlopmart wrote:
Philip Guenther wrote:
On 12/17/06, carlopmart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Somebody knows if exists some option to put on rc.conf file like
FreeBSD does with ipv6_enable="NO" option to disable IPv6 support on
OpenBSD 4.0?
No, this is not what I was asking for. Of course, we can block
by OS but what I wanted to know was, how did Steve determine that
Linux hosts were causing him grief on the Netserver running 3.6 ?
I should have been clearer. Sorry about that. Thanks nevertheless.
Mark T. Uemura
OpenBSD Suppo
Hi,
> > On the Netserver I blocked Linux OS from accessing ssh port with PF
> > as I exclusively use OpenBSD and the problem did not
> > occur again but as mentioned it was replaced fairly shortly
> > afterwards.
>
> How did you figure this out? I'm curious.
block in log proto tcp from any os L
> 3.6 on a HP Netserver.
Steve,
Can you let me know what model that was?
I've used and still use LC2000R going as far back as 2.9 without any
issues. If it was an LC2000, then I might be able to test this.
> On the Netserver I blocked Linux OS from accessing ssh port with PF as I
> exclusiv
Winston Williams wrote:
This is a continuation of my 'sshd suddenly not responding' message from
Tuesday.
I still haven't resolved the problems on this machine. I had to have
someone at the data center reboot the machine so that I could get back
in over ssh. After they rebooted the machine, I
Winston Williams wrote:
> This is a continuation of my 'sshd suddenly not responding' message from
> Tuesday.
So you start a new thread. *sigh*
And you continue to waste our time by not providing real information.
Hint: if we all aren't saying, "Me, too!", you have an unusual problem,
and you h
> I still haven't resolved the problems on this machine. I had to have
I'm sure that you're frustrated at this point not knowing how to resolve
this issue and having to do it remotely at that :(
If everything else is working at this point and you have pf enabled
as you should, then it's a matter
--On 23 June 2005 02:50 -0700, Winston Williams wrote:
Do any of you have any ideas for what I could try to either test out
this fork failure theory, or other suggestions for what might be
causing my problem?
Some possibilities come to mind,
too many open files (or login.conf limits set too l
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:50:06 -0700, Winston Williams wrote:
>This is a continuation of my 'sshd suddenly not responding' message from
>Tuesday.
>
>I still haven't resolved the problems on this machine. I had to have
>someone at the data center reboot the machine so that I could get back
>in over
This is a continuation of my 'sshd suddenly not responding' message from
Tuesday.
I still haven't resolved the problems on this machine. I had to have
someone at the data center reboot the machine so that I could get back
in over ssh. After they rebooted the machine, I was able to work for
about
31 matches
Mail list logo
