[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a36005b50912122120n4656b97bx6a6d862a57671e6d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:20:13 -0800
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
To: Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
RĂ©mi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@...phalempin.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>
Subject: Re: setrlimit(RLIMIT_NETWORK) vs. prctl(???)
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 21:09, Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> wrote:
>> That being said, I'm not wedded to the decision. Could you give me some
>> more
>> specific examples of the kinds of changes in low-level userspace code that
>> you're worried about?
It was an accident that I sent the email privately.
As summarized in the paraphrased comment, it's a pain to deal with
rlimit extensions. It's easy enough to do all this using prctl() with
the same semantics and without forcing any other code to be modified.
I let others more competent to judge the usefulness. But using rlimit
as the interface is just plain wrong.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists