(taking this reply offline, so this is mostly intended for Alan) Peter Zijlstra wrote:In theory I agree with you Peter but in practice a lot of low-skill people have to install and administer servers. I think the pragmatic and realistic approach would be to accept that many admins are not perfect, far from it. Also, this bug involves many aspects and it's possible to argue what exactly is the bug. Even if we don't change any default values, we can still change the kernel so that it survives a fork bomb. After all, the Vista kernel does survive a fork bomb although the system as a whole gets unusable. ### On Ubuntu I currently see: 1. Launch fork bomb 2. System gets to a complete freeze (I can't move mouse and not a single pixel is updated on the screen). ### On Vista I currently see: 1. Launch fork bomb 2. System gets very slow to the point where the system is unusable (but I can always mouse around the mouse freely with no sluggishness and the screen updates continue to make progress even though it takes 1-3 seconds between each update). I can still open and close the start menu if I got the patience to wait >45 seconds for it each time. I don't think that setting a max process count by default is a good/viable solution. But the kernel could still be changed so that it doesn't hose itself completely. Martin -
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Andy Whitcroft | Re: 2.6.21-rc7-mm2 -- x86_64 blade hard hangs |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | 2.6.26-rc1-git9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 |
git: | |
| Andy Grover | [PATCH 01/21] RDS: Socket interface |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
