[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802291032370.17889@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:39:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@...glemail.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, aaw <aaw@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
carlos@...esourcery.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, drepper@...hat.com,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, Geoff Clare <gwc@...ngroup.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> My reading of POSIX.1 (and POSIX doesn't seem very explicit on this point), is
> that the limits on argv+environ and on stack are decoupled, since POSIX
> specifies RLIMIT_STACK and sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) and doesn't specify any
> relationship between the two.
I agree. And clearly there _are_ relationships and always have been, but
equally clearly they simply haven't been a big issue in practice, and
nobody really cares.
Usually, _SC_ARG_MAX is just so much smaller than RLIMIT_STACK that it
makes no possible difference. Which I would actually argue we should just
continue with: just keep _SC_ARG_MAX a smallish, irrelevant constant.
We still have to have the compile-time ARG_MAX constant (as in *real*
constant - a #define) anyway, for traditional programs, and you might as
well make sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) always just match ARG_MAX.
It's not like there is likely a single user of _SC_ARG_MAX that cares.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists