Re: Broke nice range for RLIMIT NICE

[Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>]

* Chris Wright (chrisw@osdl.org) wrote:
> Yes, this requires updated pam patch.

Here's the updated pam patch.  I left the lower end at 0 rather than 1,
since it's no harm.

--- Linux-PAM-0.77/modules/pam_limits/pam_limits.c.prio	2005-01-14 10:47:03.000000000 -0800
+++ Linux-PAM-0.77/modules/pam_limits/pam_limits.c	2005-01-14 10:55:13.000000000 -0800
@@ -39,6 +39,11 @@
 #include <grp.h>
 #include <pwd.h>
 
+/* Hack to test new rlimit values */
+#define RLIMIT_NICE	13
+#define RLIMIT_RTPRIO	14
+#define RLIM_NLIMITS	15
+
 /* Module defines */
 #define LINE_LENGTH 1024
 
@@ -293,6 +298,10 @@ static void process_limit(int source, co
     else if (strcmp(lim_item, "locks") == 0)
 	limit_item = RLIMIT_LOCKS;
 #endif
+    else if (strcmp(lim_item, "rt_priority") == 0)
+	limit_item = RLIMIT_RTPRIO;
+    else if (strcmp(lim_item, "nice") == 0)
+	limit_item = RLIMIT_NICE;
     else if (strcmp(lim_item, "maxlogins") == 0) {
 	limit_item = LIMIT_LOGIN;
 	pl->flag_numsyslogins = 0;
@@ -360,6 +369,19 @@ static void process_limit(int source, co
         case RLIMIT_AS:
             limit_value *= 1024;
             break;
+        case RLIMIT_NICE:
+            limit_value = 20 - limit_value;
+            if (limit_value > 40)
+		limit_value = 40;
+	    if (limit_value < 0)
+		limit_value = 0;
+            break;
+        case RLIMIT_RTPRIO:
+            if (limit_value > 99)
+		limit_value = 99;
+	    if (limit_value < 0)
+		limit_value = 0;
+            break;
     }
 
     if ( (limit_item != LIMIT_LOGIN)