Re: top delay value
- From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:34:08 -0500
In <20070131170241.230960@xxxxxxx>, Dr. Markus Waldeck <waldeck@xxxxxx> typed:
> > typing "while :; do :; done". There are a thousand ways
No. What I write above is not a "fork bomb", it's a single
process which is wasting CPU in a busy loop. It's exactly
equivalent to top(1) with zero delay, except that top
produces some output, while a busy loop does nothing useful
at all.
I tested different shells and I found out that an exlicit sub shell
is required to let the shell fork:
while :; do (:); done
That's still not a fork bomb. While it creates a process every time
through the loop, the process exits before the loop continues, so
you've still got just a few processes. Basicaly, it's still a busy
loop.
A true fork bomb creates an ever-increasing number of processes,
typically by forking copies of itself (which led to them being called
"rabbit jobs" when I first ran into one).
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: top delay value
- From: Coleman Kane
- Re: top delay value
- References:
- Re: top delay value
- From: Oliver Fromme
- Re: top delay value
- From: Dr. Markus Waldeck
- Re: top delay value
- Prev by Date: Re: top delay value
- Next by Date: Re: a question regarding <sys/shm.h>
- Previous by thread: Re: top delay value
- Next by thread: Re: top delay value
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|