Re: [9fans] protection against resource exhaustion

[Ori Bernstein <ori@eigenstate.org>]

Too complex to use, especially since processes come and go regularly.

IMO, instead of killing processes, it would be better to keep the hanging
behavior in place, but place limits on the resources used by a subsection
of the process tree. Think ulimit, but applying to entire process heirarchies.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:03:16 +0900
arisawa <arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> > i think it will go the same way with fork protection.  how do you tell which program
> > is at fault?  how do you tell a program forking at high frequency, with short lived
> > children from a fork bomb?  (such as a busy web server.)
> 
> only system administrator knows which processes should keep running.
> therefore, as Lyndon mentioned, we need a mark “don’t kill by resource exhaustion” to processes.
> if automatic determination is desired, the last stage of /rc/bin/cpurc and /rc/bin/termrc may be the right place.
> 
> > i'm not sure i understand what you mean by "traditional programming style" here
> > as plan 9 exists in part to break unix rules.
> 
> as Eric mentioned, we have many many codes such as
> 	p = malloc(n);
> 	if(p == nil){
> 		...
> 	}
> or
> 	switch(pid = fork()) {/* assign = */
> 	case -1:
> 		sysfatal("fork: %r");
> 	case 0:
> 		...
> 	default:
> 		...
> 	}
> I have beeb writing codes believing those error return is working.
> 
> 


-- 
Ori Bernstein <ori@eigenstate.org>