Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:44:51 -0400 (EDT) | From | Admin Mailing Lists <> | Subject | Re: Sys Admin question |
| |
> It seems like the system can't say that enough is enough for a greedy user > and start making mmap() fail for them, choosing to instead axe some > processes (such as init(!)) to satisfy memory demand.
you can always start axeing users...although the law kinda frowns upon this method. obviously i mean some kind of lesser threat. Don't screw with the system or you'll find yourself not using the system anymore..or something to that effect.
-Cygnus .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-. Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer admin@intergrafix.net Intergrafix Internet Services
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today" http://cygnus.ncohafmuta.com http://www.intergrafix.net .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> > This probably isn't the best place to ask, but it's Linux, and I trust the > natural order of internet flamethrowing to cordially correct me. > > I have a Linux server with evil users looking to destroy it (ISP). > Even effortlessly, I find that I can consume all of the VM on the system. > > The limits are set to something rather reasonable (10M of addressable > memory per process, 12 processes max per user). Stricter restrictions > make trivial tasks impossible (man, for one). Under this scheme, a single > user can still consume 120 megs of virtual memory. > > This isn't what I had in mind. It'd be much easier to say "User A can only > use X megs of memory at most!" rather than say how much memory each > process can use and how many processes the user can spawn. > > Perusing the kernel source shows that such a framework is in place, but no > real meat is attached to it, so it rules that option out (unless I'm > misreading). > > What can I do in the meantime? There's only so much swap space that I can > add, and I'm still vulnerable if enough users decide that they want to run > resource intensive tasks. > > It seems like the system can't say that enough is enough for a greedy user > and start making mmap() fail for them, choosing to instead axe some > processes (such as init(!)) to satisfy memory demand. > > Am I missing something bluntly obvious? > > Thanks > -Michael Bacarella > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |