From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:38:08 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003211128520.18017@i5.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100321060607.GA4062@x200>
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> It's a perfect opportunity to introduce getrlimit64(2), setrlimit64(2)
> _without_ involving /proc, without all bugs in setrlimit(2), without
> compat code, with all resources equal across arches, and, optionally,
> with infinity setting clearly separate from value (useful for C/R).
Yeah, the infinity setting should be cleaned up. I also wonder if we
should clean up the odd file limit rules, and make them all be about
bytes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we do that whole file size thing
in kilobytes right now?
I do also agree that maybe we could/should skip the whole "writable /proc"
thing.
So introducing it as just two system calls:
int getprlimit64(pid, limit, struct rlimit64 *);
int setprlimit64(pid, limit, const struct rlimit64 *);
and having perhaps something like 'pid=0 means current' would look a lot
prettier to me.
Or even just _one_ system call that takes two pointers, and can do an
atomic replace-and-return-the-old-value, like 'sigaction()' does, ie
something like
int prlimit64(pid, limit, const struct rlimit64 *new, struct rlimit64 *old);
wouldn't that be a nice generic interface?
(Somebody should really check me on the whole "limit in kilobytes" thing -
I may be _totally_ off there. I am too lazy to check the actual source
code)
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-21 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-07 16:52 [PULL] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.33-rc1 Jiri Slaby
2009-12-09 19:25 ` [PULL] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.33-rc0 Jiri Slaby
2009-12-11 11:05 ` [git pull -resend] " Jiri Slaby
2009-12-23 9:40 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-01-02 21:40 ` [PULL] " Jiri Kosina
2010-01-02 21:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-01-04 21:59 ` Jiri Kosina
2010-01-04 10:47 ` [PULL] pull request for limits FIXES for 2.6.33-rc Jiri Slaby
2010-01-04 10:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] SECURITY: selinux, fix update_rlimit_cpu parameter Jiri Slaby
2010-01-04 10:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] resource: move kernel function inside __KERNEL__ Jiri Slaby
2010-01-04 10:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] resource: add helpers for fetching rlimits Jiri Slaby
2010-01-05 15:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] SECURITY: selinux, fix update_rlimit_cpu parameter David Howells
2010-03-05 16:53 ` [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0 Jiri Slaby
2010-03-20 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-21 1:45 ` Neil Horman
2010-03-21 6:06 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2010-03-21 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2010-03-24 17:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-04-14 9:31 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-05-05 12:12 ` Resource limits interface proposal [was: pull request for writable limits] Jiri Slaby
2010-05-05 15:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-06 6:39 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2010-05-06 15:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 01/11] rlimits: security, add task_struct to setrlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 02/11] rlimits: add task_struct to update_rlimit_cpu Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 03/11] rlimits: make sure ->rlim_max never grows in sys_setrlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 04/11] rlimits: split sys_setrlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 05/11] rlimits: allow setrlimit to non-current tasks Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 06/11] rlimits: do security check under task_lock Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 07/11] rlimits: add rlimit64 structure Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 08/11] rlimits: redo do_setrlimit to more generic do_prlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 09/11] rlimits: switch getrlimit to do_prlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 9:02 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] rlimits: switch more rlimit syscalls " Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 9:05 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH " Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 10/11] rlimits: implement prlimit64 syscall Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 11/11] unistd: add __NR_prlimit64 syscall numbers Jiri Slaby
2010-05-06 15:46 ` Resource limits interface proposal [was: pull request for writable limits] Jiri Slaby
2010-03-24 17:04 ` [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0 Jiri Slaby
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1003211128520.18017@i5.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/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®