From owner-freebsd-security Wed Sep 1 19:12: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from granite.sentex.net (granite.sentex.ca [199.212.134.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770B514EC0 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:11:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from gravel (ospf-mdt.sentex.net [205.211.164.81]) by granite.sentex.net (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA01039; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990901222200.04560100@granite.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtancsa@granite.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 22:23:10 -0400 To: Don Lewis From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: FW: Local DoS in FreeBSD Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199909020205.TAA08666@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Do you enforce an mbuf limit block write()/send*() when the limit is >reached? What about packets received over the network, do they get >tossed? Do you kill the process with the most mbufs when a shortage >occurs ;-) How do other OSes handle it ? I recall in the original thread, that the user tried it out on LINUX, and it handled the code without incident. ---Mike ********************************************************************** Mike Tancsa, Network Admin * mike@sentex.net Sentex Communications Corp, * http://www.sentex.net/mike Cambridge, Ontario * 01.519.651.3400 Canada * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message