[RFC] Coredump rlimit semantics

[RFC] Coredump rlimit semantics

[Omar Sandoval]

Hi,

I just talked to Al and Ted about the intended behavior of RLIMIT_CORE
and we decided to address a wider audience to sort it out. The context
is a patch series I sent out recently [1].

tl;dr, core is dumped as a sparse file, and before 3.13, the holes in a
file did not count against RLIMIT_CORE, but since then, they do.

This is biting us because on our web servers running HHVM, we set
RLIMIT_CORE to a value higher than the amount of physical memory on the
machine. As long as we don't swap, we expect that this limit ensures
that we get the whole coredump. Of course, now that RLIMIT_CORE charges
you for the holes, our coredumps are getting truncated.

In my opinion, this is a regression. Ted seemed to be in agreement that
charging for holes isn't useful because then for any real machine you'd
have to set the limit to be huge to get anything anyways. Al's concerns
were filesystems which don't support sparse files (but who's dumping
core to vfat?) and RLIMIT_CORE with respect to pipes, which aren't
enforced at all (see [2] and [3]).

So what should the semantics be? Should RLIMIT_CORE limit ->i_size, the
actual space allocated on disk, or the original good-enough
approximation of ignoring whatever we seek over?

I'm inclined to say that we should just return to the original behavior
and keep the pipe behavior as is (i.e., apply my patch). Linus (or
anyone else), do you have a strong opinion?

Thanks.

1: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2196036
2: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/coredump.c?h=v4.6-rc4#n622
3: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7dc0b22e3c54f1f4730354fef84a20f5944f6c5e

--
Omar

Re: [RFC] Coredump rlimit semantics

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com> wrote:
>
> I just talked to Al and Ted about the intended behavior of RLIMIT_CORE
> and we decided to address a wider audience to sort it out. The context
> is a patch series I sent out recently [1].

That series looks fine to me.

I could possibly see using a "no-holes" flag in addition to checking
the seek behavior to get accounting to be right for things like fat.
But this does seem to be a behavioural regression where the old
semantics made sense.

Al?

              Linus