Re: [SLE] adobe acrobat alternative
From: Danny Sauer (suse-linux-e.suselists_at_danny.teleologic.net)
Date: 02/27/05
- Previous message: James Hatridge: "[SLE] Re: NFS setup problem -- fixed"
- In reply to: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] adobe acrobat alternative"
- Next in thread: William Westfall: "[SLE] Lost DSL Connection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:04:43 -0600
On Saturday 26 February 2005 11:14 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Danny,
>
> On Saturday 26 February 2005 09:15, Danny Sauer wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 February 2005 10:33 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > Danny,
> > >
> > > On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:33, Danny Sauer wrote:
> > > > On Friday 25 February 2005 04:16 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > (*) The one weakness I've experienced more than any other on my
> > > > > SuSE Linux system is its vulnerability to a rogue process
> > > > > consuming so much memory that everything else gets swapped out
> > > > > and it becomes impossible to even kill the errant process.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly, you need more memory. :) Most modern system will accept
> > > > 2GB, if not 4 or more. You should have time to kill acroread
> > > > before it fills up 2GB of physical memory.
> > >
> > > I have 1 GB. Brute force cannot be the right way to address this
> > > problem.
> >
> > Maybe you have too much memory, then. The only machine I've ever had
> > that problem with is a machine with 128MB physical and 512MB swap
> > (and a particularly leaky server daemon, though I've yet to identify
> > precisely which one - the machine's running SuSE 5.2 and really
> > should just be updated, so I'm not investing time in fixing
> > problems). :) Well, my 1.5GB machine hasn't had that problem,
> > either. It must be you. :)
> >
> > > The upshot is that this is a genuine vulnerability that cannot be
> > > solved by throwing memory at the system.
> >
> > Well, if you're gonna make this a serious response, how about by
> > implementing per-process memory limits?
>
> I'm not the one who signs every message with a cute slogan. Of course
> I'm serious.
I'm glad you think they're cute. :)
> And I have considered using limits and I know of the ulimit built-in for
> BASH. But that's really neither here nor there, because only rarely are
> these programs started via a command submitted to a shell. To be
> genuinely helpful, I need something with a wider scope than a limit set
> in a shell.
Really? How do you log in? On my system, the console is a shell. SSH
logins are a shell. Common X sessions are all launched from shell scripts
(start-kde, gnome-session, .xinitrc, etc). Ergo, all of the processes
referred to are launched from within a shell at some level. Make that
shell script set your limits, and you're set. Hint - most of those scripts
don't use the --noprofile option to sh.
Theo's suggestion of pam_limits is probably easier to implement (and gives
the opportunity to play with pam's real power, which is cool in and of
itself), but sticking a ulimit line or two in /etc/profile will have a very
similar effect. Sticking it in ~/.profile should work as well, since
"most" of these sessions are run as the user.
--Danny, who's sometimes serious even when one of these is present :)
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
- Previous message: James Hatridge: "[SLE] Re: NFS setup problem -- fixed"
- In reply to: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] adobe acrobat alternative"
- Next in thread: William Westfall: "[SLE] Lost DSL Connection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
