From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:34:22 -0800
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <9fcf24ed5349ad1ae3e68b04a2b7cbc3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <D47425A6-DF5C-4191-8240-5B46D094EE04@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
References: <CAOw7k5hocVshTBBvXA86x91PpZ1hBBdAbMUBao+vCGL2wH9ryw@mail.gmail.com>
	<abaa51d009b85e94623f723606bc2ccb@felloff.net>
	<CAOw7k5j24zwQtNit8jZ-j0m+A6semHwM5kQ6C5t7q9m6uVafzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D47425A6-DF5C-4191-8240-5B46D094EE04@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] protection against resource exhaustion
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3d6712f8-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Nevertheless all programs, I believe, in /sys/src are written assuming rfork() may return -l:

* cifs keepalive thread may not start
* ssh2 will malfunction in ssh.c
* htmlroff will malfunction
* imap4d idle will fail with no warning
* upas/scanmail:/^qmail, same issue
* page/gs.c will die wierdly

etc.

so is is incorrect to assume that plan 9 programs even have code to handle
fork errors.

- erik