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: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802290928200.17889@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:19 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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, 29 Feb 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > ... 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.

But they already can't really do that. More importantly, isn't it better 
to just use the whole stack size then (or just return "stack size / 4" or 
whatever)?

			Linus
--
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/