[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070114200157.GA2582@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:01:57 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Kawai, Hidehiro" <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...e.de, james.bottomley@...eleye.com,
Satoshi OSHIMA <soshima@...hat.com>,
"Hideo AOKI@...hat" <haoki@...hat.com>,
sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: core dump masking support
Hi!
> > Well, you can have it as set of 0-1 "limits"...
>
> I have come up with a similar idea of regarding the ulimit
> value as a bitmask, and I think it may work.
> But it will be confusable for users to add the new concept of
> 0-1 limitation into the traditional resouce limitation feature.
> Additionaly, this approach needs a modification of each shell
> command.
> What do you think about these demerits?
> The /proc/<pid>/ approach doesn't have these demerits, and it
> has an advantage that users can change the bitmask of any process
> at anytime.
Well... not sure if it is advantage. Semantics of ulimit inheritance
are well given, for example. How is this going to be inherited?
Anyway, yes, I see 0/1 "limits" have bad sides, too, so...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists