linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] posix-timers: limit the number of posix timers per process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:02:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] posix-timers: limit the number of posix timers per
 process

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:47:47 -0700
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> 
> > Yes, deployment for new rlimits is a big PITA.  It would be sensible to
> > modify the shells to take some anonymous numeric argument, so you could
> > do
> >
> > 	ulimit 42 1000
> >
> > to set rlimit number 42 if your shell version doesn't understand the
> > symbolic representation of more recent additions.  Who do I call?
> 
> I guess sending a patch to the bash maintainers?
> 

That would help ;)  And all the other shells :(

It would be worth going back and taking another look at the writable
/proc/<pid>/limits patches (http://lwn.net/Articles/365732/).  Why
didn't that work get merged?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/