Re: POSIX Signals from dynamic to static-Why?

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
9 Oct 1998 20:12:39 GMT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Ely Wilson: "UDI Driver dissassembly (was Re: [OT] RE: UDI and Free Software (fwd)"
Previous message: Carlos Morgado: "Re: network nicety"
Maybe in reply to: Steven Suson: "POSIX Signals from dynamic to static-Why?"
Next in thread: Steven Suson: "Re: POSIX Signals from dynamic to static-Why?"

In article <361E24E9.9D6B3994@tti.TuckerEnergy.com>,
Steven Suson <suson@tti.TuckerEnergy.com> wrote:
> It seems that at some point between 2.1.98 and 2.1.123, the queue
>used for POSIX signals went from a purely dynamic model (limited by
>memory considerations) to a static model (currently 1024). I would very
>much like to know why?

Because you have to limit it somewhere. Otherwise you have some rather
bad memory DoS attacks by having people send unlimited numbers of
signals and never answering to them.

Linus

-
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/

Next message: Ely Wilson: "UDI Driver dissassembly (was Re: [OT] RE: UDI and Free Software (fwd)"
Previous message: Carlos Morgado: "Re: network nicety"
Maybe in reply to: Steven Suson: "POSIX Signals from dynamic to static-Why?"
Next in thread: Steven Suson: "Re: POSIX Signals from dynamic to static-Why?"