linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG

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]

Message-Id: <1204305488.6243.113.camel@lappy>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:18:08 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@...glemail.com>,
	aaw <aaw@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	michael.kerrisk@...il.com, carlos@...esourcery.com,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, drepper@...hat.com,
	mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX


On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:12 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > 2. It provides a sane mechanism for an application to determine the
> > space available for argv+environ.  Formerly this space was an
> > invariant, advertised via sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX).
> 
> ... and what's the point? We've never had it before, nobody has ever cared, 
> and the whole notion is just stupid. Why would we want to limit it? The 
> only thing that the kernel *cares* about is the stack size - any other 
> size limits are always going to be arbitrary.

Well, don't think of limiting it, but querying the limit.

Programs like xargs would need to know how much to stuff into argv
before starting a new invocation.


--
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/