bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: System stability (was: A GNU/Hurd Roadmap dream)


From: Arne Babenhauserheide
Subject: Re: System stability (was: A GNU/Hurd Roadmap dream)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:13:26 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.29-hh2; KDE/4.2.4; x86_64; ; )

Hi, 

Am Montag, 15. Juni 2009 00:38:16 schrieb olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net:
> > It's a honest, practical information about the current state of the
> > Hurd.
>
> I haven't been thinking about that when I wrote this statement... But
> you are probably right :-)

I think that makes it even better :-) 

> I must admit that the ratio is probably even worse in my case... I got
> very mixed results with bug reports to various projects in the past,
> which is not exactly encouraging :-(

Maybe I just had better luck... most of my bugreports where either well 
received or ignored... KDE and Gentoo are mostly good projects for that, I 
think (though they also have their black sheep). 

> > > changes to the system... Though I tend to believe that it could be
> > > improved at least partially, at the expense of flexibility, by
> > > enforcing certain fixed limits on users, processes etc. like other
> > > UNIX systems do.
> >
> > Can that be done in a way which can easily be undone once a proper
> > framework is in place?
>
> Adapting the system to use such a framework would probably require
> touching the same places anyways, so I guess it's not a problem.

Should I add it as a feature request or such? 

> > I think it's important to have something which works first and then
> > improve it (while taking care not to block the path forward).
>
> Full agreement!
>
> > This fragility does sound like it would make the Hurd completely
> > unusable in most situations,
>
> Nah, it's not that bad. Usually you don't have actively malicious local
> users on your system; so that leaves us with bugs in the software, which
> need to be fixed anyways...

If it means that the users need to be malicious, the issue is not as much of a 
problem, I think. It sounded to me as if it could be killed by a simple user-
error. Naturally having limits which keep userfs from shooting the whole 
system would be nice anyways - even if only in the case that a user 
unintentionally creates a fork-bomb or similar (I once managed to shoot my 
system with one, though I only wanted to try the python subprocess module ;) )

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Ein Mann wird auf der Straße mit einem Messer bedroht. 
Zwei Polizisten sind sofort da und halten ein Transparent davor. 

        "Illegale Szene. Niemand darf das sehen."

Der Mann wird ausgeraubt, erstochen und verblutet, 
denn die Polizisten haben beide Hände voll zu tun. 

Willkommen in Deutschland. Zensur ist schön. 
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]