Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:00:57 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please |
| |
Hi!
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~ Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > > *p = *current; > > > > > > retval = -EAGAIN; > > > - if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur) > > > + if (p->user->uid && > > > + (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur)) > > > > Jan, > > > > Hardcoding things signifying special treatment of uid=0 is almost always a > > bad idea. If you _really_ think that superuser (whatever entity that might > > be) should be exempt from RLIMIT_NPROC and can prove that (SuSv2 seems to > > be silent so you may be right), then you should use capable() to do proper > > capability test and not that horrible explicit uid test as in your patch > > above. > > Ok, how about setting limits on login? When this looks like: > > --- uid = 0 here > setrlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC, n) > fork() <- this will fail if root has >n processes > setuid(user) > > and it is hard to change this sequence, all PAM enabled apps depend > on it :(
So PAM dictates kernel changes? Fix pam, do not break kernel. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |