Re: NT vulnerable to attack on CPU

Rauli Ruohonen (raulir@fishy.voima.jkl.fi)
24 Dec 1996 09:28:20 GMT

In article <32BEA162.2955AD16@interpath.com>, jamesh wrote:
>> > main() {
>> > while(1) {
>> > fork();
>> > }
>> > }
>(in X). I was able to get a console and bring the system dowm. If ps
>hadn't barfed, I could have recovered without bringing down the system.

CTRL+ScrollLock?

It would be nice to have a root-only memory area, other than root processes
couldn't access it.. This would be in swap, of course. It's size would
be configurable (~2 MB default?) and it could be attained only by a process
which did some system call (SYS_I_WANT_all_memory ;) ). Then it would be
possible to have a daemon which would take control on SAK and which could
be telnet'ed to.. Would this fix all these problems?
(of course it would be real-time etc, because of that fork():ing)

And don't tell me about user limits, I know.. I still think this kind of
feature would be nice. And plus, it wouldn't take too much kernel
memory... :-]