Hi Marian,
Note: The limits will soon be increased to (nearly) ULONG_MAX.
I.e.: If you propose the patch because you are running into issues with a too small SEMMAX after an
unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC), then this will be fixed soon.
On 05/04/2014 01:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:48 +0300, Marian Marinov wrote:The idea sounds reasonable:
When we are creating new IPC namespace that should be cloned from the current namespace it is a good idea to copy the
values of the current shmmax and shmall to the new namespace.
If an admin has reduced the limits, then the reduction should also apply after a unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC).
But:
Your patch doesn't use the current shmmax, it uses the shmmax from init_ipc_ns.
Would it be possible to use the current values?
Why is this a good idea?Davidlohr: We are not deprecating them, we make the default huge.
This would break userspace that relies on the current behavior.
Furthermore we've recently changed the default value of both these
limits to be as large as you can get, thus deprecating them. I don't
like the idea of this being replaced by namespaces.
The limits should stay as usable as they were.
With regards to breaking user space, I must think about it a bit more.
Right now, each new namespace starts with SEMMAX=32MB, i.e. an often unusable default.
--
Manfred