Hi,
(not yet automated, scripts need to be written ... but the patch
below would be a typical candidate ... are you happy with the way
the description and patch are combined ?)
When a user has a low RLIMIT_NPROC set in limits.conf, the user fails
to log in. This is because the programs using pam basically do the
following:
1) apply rlimits, setting RLIMIT_NPROC to eg. 10
2) fork() to spawn the shell, which fails if root has
more processes running than the per-user limit
3) change to the user's UID
4) exec() the shell
This patch ignores the limit for root so it's possible to use limit
on the amount of processes per user again. This is also a good thing
because the processes it ignores change UID again. Server processes
running as root need to do their own limiting anyway, otherwise they'd
just starve out the proverbial root shell.
--- linux/kernel/fork.c.orig Fri Jun 22 20:27:27 2001
+++ linux/kernel/fork.c Fri Jun 22 20:52:41 2001
@@ -576,7 +576,14 @@
*p = *current;
retval = -EAGAIN;
- if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur)
+ /*
+ * Check if we are over our maximum process limit, but be sure to
+ * exclude root. This is needed to make it possible for login and
+ * friends to set the per-user process limit to something lower
+ * than the amount of processes root is running. -- Rik
+ */
+ if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur
+ && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
goto bad_fork_free;
atomic_inc(&p->user->__count);
atomic_inc(&p->user->processes);
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> (not yet automated, scripts need to be written ... but the patch
> below would be a typical candidate ... are you happy with the way
> the description and patch are combined ?)
Looks fine, except for the fact that nowhere did it say which kernel
version the patch was generated against. Which is often a rather important
clue ;)
Now if you automate this, I would suggest adding a section in between the
explanation and the patch: the "diffstat" output of the patch. It doesn't
matter much for this example, because obviously the patch is small enough
that just scrolling down shows what's up, but..
I would also suggest that whatever activates the patch asks for a
subject-line that is more than 12 characters long ;)
Also worthwhile for automation is an md5sum or similar (for verifying that
the mail made it though the mail system unscathed). A pgp signature would
be even better, of course - especially useful as I suspect it would be
good to also cc the things to some patch-list, and having a clear identity
on the sender is always a good idea in these things.
Linus
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 12:35:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Also worthwhile for automation is an md5sum or similar (for verifying that
> the mail made it though the mail system unscathed). A pgp signature would
> be even better, of course - especially useful as I suspect it would be
> good to also cc the things to some patch-list, and having a clear identity
> on the sender is always a good idea in these things.
I've been thinking that a "[email protected]" dumping ground would be
useful.
This is NOT intended as a patch tracker. This is NOT intended as a
substitution for submitting the patch to you, but instead intended
as a patch archive that doesn't go away. We have seen linux-kernel
archives come and go, or drop messages. But a patch archive would be
useful... I'm not sure a mailing list proper is right for the job,
since I want to support the reception and archiving of multi-megabyte
patches at times.
Jeff
On December 27, 2001 10:35 pm, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 12:35:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Also worthwhile for automation is an md5sum or similar (for verifying that
> > the mail made it though the mail system unscathed). A pgp signature would
> > be even better, of course - especially useful as I suspect it would be
> > good to also cc the things to some patch-list, and having a clear identity
> > on the sender is always a good idea in these things.
>
> I've been thinking that a "[email protected]" dumping ground would be
> useful.
>
> This is NOT intended as a patch tracker. This is NOT intended as a
> substitution for submitting the patch to you, but instead intended
> as a patch archive that doesn't go away. We have seen linux-kernel
> archives come and go, or drop messages. But a patch archive would be
> useful... I'm not sure a mailing list proper is right for the job,
> since I want to support the reception and archiving of multi-megabyte
> patches at times.
Exactly what I was thinking of: '[email protected]'. The idea is,
instead of putting [PATCH] on your subject line and cc'ing it to Linus, you
mail it to linux-patches with a cc to lkml if you like (depending on size of
patch, how interesting, etc). In any event, linux-patches will forward a
copy to Linus.
--
Daniel
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On December 27, 2001 10:35 pm, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 12:35:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Also worthwhile for automation is an md5sum or similar (for verifying that
> > > the mail made it though the mail system unscathed). A pgp signature would
> > > be even better, of course - especially useful as I suspect it would be
> > > good to also cc the things to some patch-list, and having a clear identity
> > > on the sender is always a good idea in these things.
> >
> > I've been thinking that a "[email protected]" dumping ground would be
> > useful.
> >
> > This is NOT intended as a patch tracker. This is NOT intended as a
> > substitution for submitting the patch to you, but instead intended
> > as a patch archive that doesn't go away. We have seen linux-kernel
> > archives come and go, or drop messages. But a patch archive would be
> > useful... I'm not sure a mailing list proper is right for the job,
> > since I want to support the reception and archiving of multi-megabyte
> > patches at times.
>
> Exactly what I was thinking of: '[email protected]'. The idea is,
> instead of putting [PATCH] on your subject line and cc'ing it to Linus, you
> mail it to linux-patches with a cc to lkml if you like (depending on size of
> patch, how interesting, etc). In any event, linux-patches will forward a
> copy to Linus.
You of course need something like -2.4 and -2.5.
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
On December 29, 2001 07:13 pm, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > On December 27, 2001 10:35 pm, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 12:35:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > Also worthwhile for automation is an md5sum or similar (for verifying that
> > > > the mail made it though the mail system unscathed). A pgp signature would
> > > > be even better, of course - especially useful as I suspect it would be
> > > > good to also cc the things to some patch-list, and having a clear identity
> > > > on the sender is always a good idea in these things.
> > >
> > > I've been thinking that a "[email protected]" dumping ground would be
> > > useful.
> > >
> > > This is NOT intended as a patch tracker. This is NOT intended as a
> > > substitution for submitting the patch to you, but instead intended
> > > as a patch archive that doesn't go away. We have seen linux-kernel
> > > archives come and go, or drop messages. But a patch archive would be
> > > useful... I'm not sure a mailing list proper is right for the job,
> > > since I want to support the reception and archiving of multi-megabyte
> > > patches at times.
> >
> > Exactly what I was thinking of: '[email protected]'. The idea is,
> > instead of putting [PATCH] on your subject line and cc'ing it to Linus, you
> > mail it to linux-patches with a cc to lkml if you like (depending on size of
> > patch, how interesting, etc). In any event, linux-patches will forward a
> > copy to Linus.
>
> You of course need something like -2.4 and -2.5.
Yes:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Now... conventions for the subject line?
By the way, this to me is really a 'bot'. The bulk of the proposals in this
thread seem more like tools.
--
Daniel
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > You of course need something like -2.4 and -2.5.
>
> Yes:
>
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
>
> Now... conventions for the subject line?
Subjects should be human-readable and descriptive. If they're going to
Linux-kernel, they should contain [patch]. I don't think you can
realistically ask for much more unless you put something behind it capable
of rejecting non-conformers.
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."