From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:58:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060216005826.4afc87ae.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060214222417.GA8479@sgi.com>
Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> A test suite uncovered a possible bug in setrlimit(2), in 2.6.16-rc3.
>
> A code that does
> mylimits.rlim_cur = 0;
> setrlimit(RLIMIT_CPU, &mylimits);
> does not set a cpu time limit.
>
> No signal is sent to this code when its "limit" of 0 seconds expires.
> Whereas, under the 2.6.5 kernel (SuSE SLESS9) a signal was sent.
>
> I don't see any obvious difference in sys_setrlimit() or
> set_process_cpu_timer() between 2.6.5 and 2.6.16.
>
> Is this a correction, or a bug?
>
> Is a cpu time limit of 0 supposed to limit a task to 0 seconds, or
> leave it unlimited?
>
This has to be considered a bug. The spec certainly implies that a limit
of zero should be honoured and, probably more importantly, that's how it
works in 2.4.
Problem is, the code in there all assumes that an it_prof_expires of zero
means "it was never set", and changing that (add a yes-it-has flag?) would
be less than trivial.
So I think the path of least resistance here is to just convert the
caller's zero seconds into one second. That in fact gives the same
behaviour as 2.4: you get whacked after one second or more CPU time.
(This is not a final patch - that revolting expression in sys_setrlimit()
needs help first).
diff -puN kernel/sys.c~a kernel/sys.c
--- devel/kernel/sys.c~a 2006-02-16 00:42:49.000000000 -0800
+++ devel-akpm/kernel/sys.c 2006-02-16 00:45:10.000000000 -0800
@@ -1657,7 +1657,19 @@ asmlinkage long sys_setrlimit(unsigned i
(cputime_eq(current->signal->it_prof_expires, cputime_zero) ||
new_rlim.rlim_cur <= cputime_to_secs(
current->signal->it_prof_expires))) {
- cputime_t cputime = secs_to_cputime(new_rlim.rlim_cur);
+ unsigned long rlim_cur = new_rlim.rlim_cur;
+ cputime_t cputime;
+
+ if (rlim_cur == 0) {
+ /*
+ * The caller is asking for an immediate RLIMIT_CPU
+ * expiry. But we use the zero value to mean "it was
+ * never set". So let's cheat and make it one second
+ * instead
+ */
+ rlim_cur = 1;
+ }
+ cputime = secs_to_cputime(rlim_cur);
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
set_process_cpu_timer(current, CPUCLOCK_PROF,
_
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-16 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-14 22:24 Cliff Wickman
2006-02-16 8:58 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-02-16 9:47 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060216005826.4afc87ae.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=cpw@sgi.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®