[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181120173912.GD3065@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:39:12 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
timmurray@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
Prashant Dhamdhere <pdhamdhe@...hat.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:18:29AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > would ever rely on the pid being reused while having the descriptor
> > open. How would that make sense?
>
> I agree this is corner space, but users might be surprised that
> keeping FDs of /proc/pid/X would lead to PID space exhaustion, for
> example.
We have a limit on the number of FDs a process can have open for a reason.
Well, for many reasons.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists