Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 15:00:50 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Kevin Day <toasty@home.dragondata.com> Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon), hasty@rah.star-gate.com, dv@dv.ru, green@unixhelp.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DoS from local users (fwd) Message-ID: <199904112100.PAA05104@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:57:26 CDT." <199904102057.PAA27724@home.dragondata.com> References: <199904102057.PAA27724@home.dragondata.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199904102057.PAA27724@home.dragondata.com> Kevin Day writes: : i.e. uid 1001 starts 40 processes eating as much cpu as they can. Then uid : 1002 starts up one process. Uid 1002's process gets 50% cpu, and uid 1001's : 40 processes get 50% cpu shared between them. I've seen some experimental patches in the past that try to do just this. However, there are some problems. What if uid 1002's process does a sleep. Should the 40 processes that 1001 just get 50% of the cpu? Or should there be other limits. It turns into an interesting research problem in a hurry. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904112100.PAA05104>