From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: setrlimit(RLIMIT_NETWORK) vs. prctl(???) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:20:13 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20091213034418.GA4416@heat> <20091213050900.GC4369@heat> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , David Lang , Oliver Hartkopp , Alan Cox , Herbert Xu , Valdis Kletnieks , Bryan Donlan , =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Denis=2DCourmont?= , Evgeniy Polyakov , "C. Scott Ananian" , James Morris , "Eric W. Biederman" , Bernie Innocenti , Mark Seaborn To: Michael Stone Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.25]:19257 "HELO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750780AbZLMFUf (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:20:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091213050900.GC4369@heat> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 21:09, Michael Stone wrote: >> That being said, I'm not wedded to the decision. Could you give me some >> more >> specific examples of the kinds of changes in low-level userspace code that >> you're worried about? It was an accident that I sent the email privately. As summarized in the paraphrased comment, it's a pain to deal with rlimit extensions. It's easy enough to do all this using prctl() with the same semantics and without forcing any other code to be modified. I let others more competent to judge the usefulness. But using rlimit as the interface is just plain wrong.