Re: Question about kill(1)
>>>>> "Adeodato" == Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es> writes:
Adeodato> I also have heard (but I'm not sure how often does this
Adeodato> happen, if at all) that it is usefult to have it as a
Adeodato> built-in when your system is in a state when it can't
Adeodato> create more processes.
In practise whenever that happens, and if I am lucky enough to have a
terminal open, and if I am not dumb enough to accidently close the
window, I don't know what the PID is of that CPU hungry/memory hungry
process is in order to kill it.
This happened to me approx a week ago. I wanted to write a wrapper
around subversion that set umask before calling subversion, but
instead the wrapper recursively called itself. I thought subversion
was just being slow. It never considered the possibility it was the
reason my computer subsequently went very slowly until it was
unusable. It took me two reboots of the computer before I finally
realized the DOS attack was from *my* own script! It took me another
reboot to fix the problem properly.
Sometimes it pays to use the full pathname to the executable...
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: