Re: 2.0, loggings, cpu quotas, 2.1 issues, etc.

Alan Cox (alan@cymru.net)
Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:40:26 +0100 (BST)

> It's implementable. The kernel needs a "struct userinfo" per logged-in user
> for that to work. The same structure could also hold total memory usage,
> which would enable us to finally block most of the more malicious
> fork/malloc bombs.

Make that a chargeable group and we get the ability to partition a big
machine up by department and to do sensible charging schemes. For big number
crunchers that is an issue.

> But then, if you have that kind of user population where this is a
> significant problem, your money is better spent on educating these guys to
> Not Do That (and kick the few people who can't understand the words "cease
> and desist" off the system).

Users you can educate, "Customers" tend to be trickier