1. 47
  1.  

  2. 3

    I guess this could DoS by consuming PIDs, while still making it seem on most monitoring that everything is fine. Nefarious.

    1. 8

      Two counter points:

      1. This requires arbitrary code execution. If someone has enough motivation and privilege to mount an attack like this, DoS is probably the last thing you should be concerned about.
      2. In a soft multitenant environment, you can enforce live process quotas using the pid controller which would block this pthread_create.
      1. 4

        If you have process in D state, you are likely have some serious bugs in HW or kernel.

        1. 3

          If you have a sysadmin who isn’t using resource limits, then you already have two other problems you should probably be dealing with, and when you do, this problem will just go away.

        2. 1

          To mention something else: I enjoyed this project.

          It’s cool in a Monty Python nonsensical way. The author has answered a question that I never had - can you have a living process with no memory - with a clear and good example - that I would not have come up with.

          Very enjoyable content and a reason I like coming here.

          1. -10

            Friendly reminder Linux is unorthogonal trash.

            seL4 is where it’s at.

            Linux has countless such pathological corner cases, and too many LoCs to find and fix them.

            1. 5

              Sure. And the Intel architecture is also shit. But just like democracy, “they are the worst, until you consider the alternatives”.

              1. 6

                That does not apply, at all. The alternatives to x86 are great, and alternatives to the Linux kernel are great. This is a problem of market share and incentives.

                1. 2

                  What are some superior alternatives to x86 and/or Linux and why are they better?

                  1. 3

                    Plan 9 - A UNIX that’s leagues better than any before, including Linux. It takes ‘everything is a file’ to the logical conclusion and is much more tightly consolidated than any other UNIX I’ve seen.

                    Inferno - The successor to Plan 9

                    Oberon

                    And that’s really just the tip of the Iceberg. Most BSD operating systems are a massive improvement over Linux, purely because the design is cleaner and better laid out.

                    1. 2

                      I’d note that Inferno isn’t a successor to Plan9 any more than HarveyOS is.

                      Drawing inspiration from a system while trying out different concepts doesn’t make either of these systems “The Successor”.

                      I find the label is very strong, and these systems would have to pretty much take over the community around the original one to get to this point.

                      Plan 9 front has a chance of that, as it isn’t a rewrite but a fork, and it is actually the most alive of the Plan9 family tree, as far as I am aware.

                      1. 1

                        Inferno is a direct descendant of Plan 9, written by the same people, after they stopped maintaining Plan 9. Intended to address and continue the ideas and lessons they learned from building Plan 9.

                        It’s easier to say ‘successor’.

                  2. 2

                    That’s kind of what I meant. There are alternatives, but honestly other than ARM nothing has come close to the level of availability Linux and the Intel platform have. The only thing that approximates it in popularity and adoption (Windows) is the one platform everyone hates.

                    So they are both evils we’ve come to use, and until something replaces them, there’s no use in moaning about their shortcomings.

                2. 1

                  What a worthless, useless comment, and it’s not even correct.

                  1. 5

                    What a worthless, useless comment,

                    Not dealing with this part.

                    and it’s not even correct.

                    Can you elaborate?