Re: [PATCH 2/4] posix-timers: limit the number of posix timers perprocess

[Jiri Slaby]

On 08/31/2011 01:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:47:47 -0700
> Andi Kleen<ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > > Yes, deployment for new rlimits is a big PITA.  It would be sensible to
> > > modify the shells to take some anonymous numeric argument, so you could
> > > do
> > >
> > > 	ulimit 42 1000
> > >
> > > to set rlimit number 42 if your shell version doesn't understand the
> > > symbolic representation of more recent additions.  Who do I call?
> >
> > I guess sending a patch to the bash maintainers?
>
> That would help ;)  And all the other shells :(
>
> It would be worth going back and taking another look at the writable
> /proc/<pid>/limits patches (http://lwn.net/Articles/365732/).  Why
> didn't that work get merged?

This turned out to be too heavy-weight. We ended up having prlimit64 
syscall. I.e. most of the pull request was merged. But not the 2 patches 
for writable /proc/.../limits.

With that syscall we might augment coreutils (or better kernel/tools to 
be updated properly) by a tool such as `prlimit', I think. Actually 
something I had when I was testing the syscall:
https://github.com/jirislaby/collected_sources/blob/master/lim/lim.c#L1

regards,
--
js
suse labs
--
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/