Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The concept behind a fork bomb — the processes continually replicate themselves, potentially causing a denial of service. In computing, a fork bomb (also called rabbit virus) is a denial-of-service (DoS) attack wherein a process continually replicates itself to deplete available system resources, slowing down or crashing the system due to resource starvation.
ABAP Version was just an infinite loop and not a fork bomb. Given the fixed number of process slots Netweaver has with a roll-in/roll-out mechanism a forkbomb does not quite make sense - it would not bring the system completely to its knees, it would just drastically degrade performance. I guess a semi fork-bomb can be made using CALL FUNCTION ..
Fork and its variants are typically the only way of doing so in Unix-like systems. For a process to start the execution of a different program, it first forks to create a copy of itself. Then, the copy, called the " child process ", calls the exec system call to overlay itself with the other program: it ceases execution of its former program in ...
David A. Wheeler notes [9] four possible outcomes of a fork, with examples: The death of the fork. This is by far the most common case. It is easy to declare a fork, but considerable effort to continue independent development and support. A re-merging of the fork (e.g., egcs becoming "blessed" as the new version of GNU Compiler Collection.)
Fork bomb: a similar method to exhaust a system's resources through recursion; Zip bomb: a similar attack utilizing zip archives; XML external entity attack: an XML attack to return arbitrary server files; Document type definition: a template for validating XML files
fork() is the name of the system call that the parent process uses to "divide" itself ("fork") into two identical processes. After calling fork(), the created child process is an exact copy of the parent except for the return value of the fork() call. This includes open files, register state, and all memory allocations, which includes the ...
Implementations of the fork–join model will typically fork tasks, fibers or lightweight threads, not operating-system-level "heavyweight" threads or processes, and use a thread pool to execute these tasks: the fork primitive allows the programmer to specify potential parallelism, which the implementation then maps onto actual parallel execution. [1]
The fork–join model from the 1960s, embodied by multiprocessing tools like OpenMP, is an early example of a system ensuring all threads have completed before exit.. However, Smith argues that this model is not true structured concurrency as the programming language is unaware of the joining behavior, and is thus unable to enforce