| 1 |
27.06.2010 10:50, klondike пишет: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Updated that too, I also commented that a small edit of the patch could |
| 4 |
> also be valid to add the SIGSEGV signal to those controlled. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
OK, but this part brings some degree of uncertainty: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
"though if you do, your system would be prone to a DOS attack if any of |
| 9 |
your forking daemons has a memory bug." |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
... It sounds like if you have a single buggy daemon, it would make the |
| 12 |
_whole_ system be prone to a DoS attack, while it's just the daemon |
| 13 |
itself becomes at risk. Maybe change it to: "though if you do, and if |
| 14 |
any of your forking daemons has a memory bug, that daemon would be prone |
| 15 |
to a DOS attack ."? |
Archives