Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:31:48 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br>, Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>, Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org>, David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm ... SIGDANGER Message-ID: <20030314152510.A4480@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <p05200f2cba97ef395f0e@[128.113.24.47]> References: <8023.1047662161@critter.freebsd.dk> <p05200f2bba97e5a92150@[128.113.24.47]> <20030314140414.V4480@odysseus.silby.com> <p05200f2cba97ef395f0e@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >In case #2, SIGDANGER wouldn't help much; how much ram can the > >actively running, legitimate programs really save? > > Uh, in case #2, you would change X to have a SIGDANGER signal-handler, > and have that signal-handler simply "Do Nothing" and return. Thus, > the mere presence of the signal-handler will make sure that X is never > the thing that gets killed. The SIGDANGER signal-handler that I > added to 'lpd' (at RPI) has the name "ignore_danger"... Well, if that's all SIGDANGER did for you, then I'd advocate an approach which prioritizes lower uid programs and/or lower (higher?) nice values. Then lpd _and other important processes_ would be automatically protected. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030314152510.A4480>