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:	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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ