Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX

[Michael Kerrisk]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>  On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>  >
>  > 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.
>
>  I agree. And clearly there _are_ relationships and always have been, but
>  equally clearly they simply haven't been a big issue in practice, and
>  nobody really cares.

Do we know that for sure?

>  Usually, _SC_ARG_MAX is just so much smaller than RLIMIT_STACK that it
>  makes no possible difference.  Which I would actually argue we should just
>  continue with: just keep _SC_ARG_MAX a smallish, irrelevant constant.
>
>  We still have to have the compile-time ARG_MAX constant (as in *real*
>  constant - a #define) anyway, for traditional programs, and you might as
>  well make sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) always just match ARG_MAX.
>
>  It's not like there is likely a single user of _SC_ARG_MAX that cares.

In my initial reply, I pointed out one example where users *may* care:
NPTL uses RLIMIT_STACK to determine the size of per-thread stacks.  It
is conceivable that users might want to set RLIMIT_STACK < 512k, and
that would have the effect of lowering the amount of space for
argv+eviron below what the kernel has historically guaranteed.  That's
an ABI change, though it's unclear whether it would impact anyone in
practice.
--
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/