Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX

[Michael Kerrisk]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > You fail to mention that <23 will still fault the first time it tries to
> > > grow the stack when you set rlimit_stack to 128k and actually supply
> > > 128k of env+arg.
> > So? That's what rlimit_stack has always meant (and not just on Linux 
> > either, afaik). That's not a bug, it's a feature. If the system has a 
> > limited stack, it has a limited stack. That's what RLIMIT_STACK means.
>
> Well, I agree with that point. It just that apparently POSIX does not.
> According to Michael POSIX does not consider the arg+env array part of
> the stack proper.

AFAIK, POSIX.1 makes no requirement here.  Most (all?) Unix systems have 
traditionally placed argv+environ just above the stack, but that isn't 
required.

My reading of POSIX.1 (and POSIX doesn't seem very explicit on this 
point), is that the limits on argv+environ and on stack are decoupled, 
since POSIX specifies RLIMIT_STACK and sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) and doesn't 
specify any relationship between the two.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/