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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170503005314.7oovr764r3e4elzd@ast-mbp> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:53:16 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> Cc: kafai@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric@...it.org, Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net> Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/4] samples/bpf: adjust rlimit RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for traceex2, tracex3 and tracex4 On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:31:50PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > Needed to adjust max locked memory RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for testing these bpf samples > as these are using more and larger maps than can fit in distro default 64Kbytes limit. > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> ... > + struct rlimit r = {1024*1024, RLIM_INFINITY}; ... > + struct rlimit r = {1024*1024, RLIM_INFINITY}; why magic numbers? All other samples do struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY}; > + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) { > + perror("setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK)"); ip_tunnel.c test does: perror("setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, RLIM_INFINITY)"); Few others do: assert(!setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)); and the rest just: setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r); We probalby need to move this to a helper. > + struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY}; here it's consistent :) > + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) { > + perror("setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, RLIM_INFINITY)"); but with different perror ? Let's do a common helper for all?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists