[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <65dd6fd50802291101j3786ee60iec0f3a24f5df9945@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:01:38 -0800
From: "Ollie Wild" <aaw@...gle.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Michael Kerrisk" <michael.kerrisk@...glemail.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, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So it's not *going* to be exact even with RLIMIT_ARG_MAX, because it's
> going to have all those other issues to contend with - on a 64-bit
> architecture, the argument _pointers_ are often within an order of
> magnitude of the argument strings themselves, and I don't think your patch
> counted them as part of the argument/environemnt size (I was too lazy to
> check the sources, but I'm pretty sure argv/env_start/end is just the
> string space, not the pointers).
This is precisely why I picked 25% as the maximum argument size ratio.
In practice, that 25% can easily mean 50% or more. If people want to
increase this, it can probably be tweaked somewhat, but switching it
to, say, 50% probably isn't a good idea.
Ollie
--
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