Re: Any particular reason we don't have sshd oomprotected by default?

Alexander Leidinger <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:07:30 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.os.freebsd.architechture
Organization	No organization, this is a private message.
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Am 2023-11-09 12:18, schrieb Philip Paeps:
> On 2023-11-09 15:54:22 (+0800), Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> We have syslogd oomprotected by default (/etc/defaults/rc.conf). Is 
>> there a particular reason we don't have sshd protected the same way?
>> 
>> Any objections if I would commit such a change (sshd_oomprotect=YES in 
>> defaults/rc.conf)?
> 
> I don't have feelings about it either way.  It probably makes sense to 
> optimise for installations that don't have out of band access.
> 
>> I was also thinking about which other daemon we should protect by 
>> default, but apart from the need to make sure important logs are 
>> written to find issues which may have caused the oom trigger, and the 
>> need to be able to login to such a troubled system, I didn't see any 
>> other service as such critical (we could argue about ntpd, but I send 
>> to be on the "may be protected" (not for my use cases) and not to be 
>> on the "has to be protected" side) to include it in this proposal.
> 
> In the FreeBSD.org cluster, we set local_unbound_oomprotect="YES" too.  
> Without DNS, everything grinds to a halt.  Including SSH.

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D42544

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net [email protected]: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.org    [email protected]  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)