[9fans] Re: patch/list killbig-nits

[9fans] Re: patch/list killbig-nits

[uriel]

> d-rwxrwxr-x M 815285 uriel sys 0 Jan 19 00:58 killbig-nits
> from uriel@cat-v.org
> 	/sys/src/9/port/proc.c
> 	/sys/src/9/port/swap.c
> 	Don't kill fossil or venti even if they are hogs!
> 	
> 	Move a comment about "no swap configured" to swap.c because it's 
> 	not always correct(killbig() is called by ^T^Tk).
> 	
> 
> Thu Jan 19 11:35:35 EST 2006 rsc
>     The extra print in swap.c is unnecessary, since it will print
>     "no physical memory" right after calling killbig.
I edited things in a way that avoided removing any existing info while fixing the incorrect
cases, I'm happy with any messages and wording you like as long as they are correct :)

     
>     I'm not happy with the proliferation of magic process names.
>     Instead, why not check if(p->procmode&0222).  The startup script
>     can then chmod -w /proc/importantguys/ctl.
Good idea, but that would allow a (malicious) user to protect it's own hogs,
maybe we should also check that it's not owned by eve? ugly too, but I can't
think of anything better.

uriel

[9fans] Re: patch/list killbig-nits

[Russ Cox]

> > I'm not happy with the proliferation of magic process names.
> > Instead, why not check if(p->procmode&0222).  The startup script
> > can then chmod -w /proc/importantguys/ctl.
> Good idea, but that would allow a (malicious) user to protect it's own hogs,
> maybe we should also check that it's not owned by eve?  ugly too, but I can't
> think of anything better.

There are so many other things a malicious user could do instead.

Russ

Re: [9fans] Re: patch/list killbig-nits

[uriel]

>> > I'm not happy with the proliferation of magic process names.
>> > Instead, why not check if(p->procmode&0222).  The startup script
>> > can then chmod -w /proc/importantguys/ctl.
>> Good idea, but that would allow a (malicious) user to protect it's own hogs,
>> maybe we should also check that it's not owned by eve?  ugly too, but I can't
>> think of anything better.
> 
> There are so many other things a malicious user could do instead.
With all the public Plan 9 servers around  it would be good to at least try to avoid
adding more such possibilities, specially when the cost of doing so is almost nil.

Also it might be good to list all such things, so we can try to fix them, it certainly
would make sense for public 9grid nodes.

uriel