public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set RLIMIT_SIGPENDING limit based on RLIMIT_NPROC
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:07:47 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050224030747.GG15867@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200502240224.j1O2OqHL010736@magilla.sf.frob.com>

* Roland McGrath (roland@redhat.com) wrote:
> While looking into the issues Jeremy had with the RLIMIT_SIGPENDING limit,
> it occurred to me that the normal setting of this limit is bizarrely low.
> The initial hard limit setting (MAX_SIGPENDING) was taken from the old
> max_queued_signals parameter, which was for the entire system in aggregate.
> But even as a per-user limit, the 1024 value is incongruously low for this.

But the old default system-wide limit was 1024.  And you could have
spawned 8k processes then as well.  So I don't think this matters much.

> On my machine, RLIMIT_NPROC allows me 8192 processes, but only 1024 queued
> signals, i.e. fewer even than one pending signal in each process.  (To me,
> this really puts in doubt the sensibility of using a per-user limit for
> this rather than a per-process one, i.e. counted in sighand_struct or
> signal_struct, which could have a much smaller reasonable value.  I don't
> recall the rationale for making this new limit per-user in the first place.)

I don't either, the archives show using per-user as default choice
(never saw a discussion otherwise).  Users can easily queue signals to
themselves (using multiple processes or not), and there was some concern
that somebody actually wanted to be able queue up to 1024 (since it's
what was allowed in the past).

> This patch sets the default RLIMIT_SIGPENDING limit at boot time, using the
> calculation that decides the default RLIMIT_NPROC limit.  This uses the
> same value for those two limits, which I think is still pretty conservative
> on the RLIMIT_SIGPENDING value.

It's an rlimit, so easily setable in userspace at login session time.  I
think we could raise it if people start complaining it's too low (hasn't
seemed to be a problem yet).

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net

  reply	other threads:[~2005-02-24  3:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-23  6:42 [PATCH] Always send siginfo for synchronous signals Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2005-02-23 20:19 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-23 23:09   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2005-02-23 23:46     ` Chris Wright
2005-02-24  0:50       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2005-02-24  2:07     ` [PATCH] show RLIMIT_SIGPENDING usage in /proc/PID/status Roland McGrath
2005-02-24  2:33       ` Chris Wright
2005-02-24  2:55         ` Roland McGrath
2005-02-24  3:06           ` Chris Wright
2005-02-24  2:24     ` [PATCH] set RLIMIT_SIGPENDING limit based on RLIMIT_NPROC Roland McGrath
2005-02-24  3:07       ` Chris Wright [this message]
2005-02-25  2:05         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2005-02-25  2:10           ` Chris Wright
2005-02-23 23:44   ` [PATCH] Always send siginfo for synchronous signals Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2005-02-24  1:45     ` [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals Roland McGrath
2005-02-24  2:32       ` Chris Wright
2005-02-24  2:43         ` Roland McGrath
2005-02-24  3:12           ` Chris Wright
2005-02-25  2:01       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2005-02-25  2:12         ` Chris Wright
2005-02-25  2:16           ` Roland McGrath
2005-02-25  3:02             ` Chris Wright

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050224030747.GG15867@shell0.pdx.osdl.net \
    --to=chrisw@osdl.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox