On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 10:50:21AM +0800, zju wrote:
> So is it possible to optimize the continuous growth of memory occupied by
> child processes？
Someone will have to find where the memory leak is occurring. You'll
want a more controlled reproducer than an infinite fork bomb.
> Or is there an
> 2023年3月11日 06:17，Chet Ramey 写道：
>
> On 3/10/23 11:37 AM, zju wrote:
>
>> I have already set the maximum number of processes available to a single
>> user "ulimit -Su”.
>> But the memory occupied by bashes were increasing all the time which would
>> call oom.This is the key issue.
>
> If
On 3/10/23 11:37 AM, zju wrote:
I have already set the maximum number of processes available to a single user
"ulimit -Su”.
But the memory occupied by bashes were increasing all the time which would call
oom.This is the key issue.
If you don't see an error message from bash about fork failin
On 3/10/23 4:28 AM, wang yuhang via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
Second, When bash fork is a child process, it always creates a memory to
manage the job, even if the maximum number set by the ulimit command is reached
```
If the maximum number of child processes is excee
>The Un*x convention has always been that SIGTERM kills the process but
>the process can override that, and SIGKILL kills the process and the
>process cannot override that. So if systemd isn't protecting the system
>adequately with its current operation, it should instead send SIGKILL.
As yuhang s
zju <21625...@zju.edu.cn> writes:
>> Interactive shells always ignore SIGTERM.
>
> I confirmed that the fork bomb through bash would cause the system
> oom! This indicates that anybody can use this flaw to crash the
> system.It is quite dangerous.
>
> If you think the behavior of ignoring the SIGTE
> Interactive shells always ignore SIGTERM.
I confirmed that the fork bomb through bash would cause the system oom! This
indicates that anybody can use this flaw to crash the system.It is quite
dangerous.
If you think the behavior of ignoring the SIGTERM is reasonable. Maybe the only
way to so
On 3/10/23 5:04 AM, wang yuhang via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
> First, systemd will send a sigterm to bash, but in bash-5.1, the bash process will not
be killed. this was caused by a > > > change in bash 5.1. The modified
change information is as follows
> ```
> sss. Fix
> First, systemd will send a sigterm to bash, but in bash-5.1, the bash
process will not be killed. this was caused by a > > > change in bash
5.1. The modified change information is as follows
> ```
> sss. Fix a bug where receiving SIGTERM from a different process while
readline was active could
Hello !
I am now doing a test on the fork bomb with the command `:(){:|:&};:` and
set `ulimit - c 1000`. And everything was well in bash-5.0, but there was a
problem in bash-5.1.
The main performance is that the system memory has been rising, and then the
kernel appears the oom, I found that
10 matches
Mail list logo
