From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752146AbZI2UqK (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:46:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751222AbZI2UqJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:46:09 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53241 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751136AbZI2UqJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:46:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:46:03 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Neil Horman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: augment /proc/pid/limits to allow setting of process limits (v2). Message-Id: <20090929134603.3935b149.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090929202504.GC20420@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20090928200600.GA3053@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20090928154403.25678002.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090929202504.GC20420@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:25:04 -0400 Neil Horman wrote: > 3) modify the proc/pid/limits write routine so that it uses do_setrlimit, > thereby giving us the previously missing security checks. I dunno, the interface just seems goofy to me. Yes, it's always been strange that rlimits cannot be externally altered. And desirable to extend that. But doing what is really a syscall via a profs poke when there already exists a syscall which does the same thing seems Just Wrong. What reason is there to do it via procfs? Where's the benefit? Maybe it's a plot to stop people from setting CONFIG_PROC_FS=n.