Re: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK?

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:15:40AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven 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.

I thought in the case we were talking about, the problem is that we
have a setuid program which calls mlockall() but then later drops its
privileges.  So when it tries to allocate memories, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
applies again, and so all future memory allocations would fail.  

What I proposed is a hack, but strictly speaking not necessary
according to the POSIX standards, but the problem is that a portable
program can't be expected to know that Linux has a RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
resource limit, such that a program which calls mlockall() and then
drops privileges will work under Solaris and fail under Linux.  Hence
I why proposed a hack where mlockall() would adjust RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Yes, no question it's a hack and a special case; the question is
whether cure or the disease is worse.

						- Ted