Messages in this thread | | | From | Joerg Schilling <> | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:18:31 +0100 | Subject | Re: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK? |
| |
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 10:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > the situation is messy; I can see some value in the hack Ted proposed to > > > just bump the rlimit automatically at an mlockall-done-by-root.. but to > > > be fair it's a hack :( > > > > As all other rlimits are honored even if you are root, it looks not orthogonal > > to disregard an existing RLIMIT_MEMLOCK rlimit if you are root. > > that's another solution; give root a higher rlimit by default for this. > It's also a bit messy, but a not-unreasonable default behavior.
This would only make sense in case that you bump up the limit for processes that are suid root and do not lower it in case someone calls seteuid().
Jörg
-- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |