Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030243AbWBMXBI (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:01:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030256AbWBMXBH (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:01:07 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:33722 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030243AbWBMXAz (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:00:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:00:51 -0600 From: Cliff Wickman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Question: possible bug in setrlimit Message-ID: <20060213230051.GA29417@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 801 Lines: 26 A test suite uncovered a possible bug in setrlimit(2). A code that does mylimits.rlim_cur = 0; setrlimit(RLIMIT_CPU, &mylimits); does not set a cpu time limit. No signal is sent to this code when its "limit" of 0 seconds expires. Under the 2.6.5 kernel (SuSE SLESS9) a signal was sent. I don't see any obvious difference in sys_setrlimit() or set_process_cpu_timer() between 2.6.5 and 2.6.16. Is a cpu time limit of 0 supposed to limit to 0 seconds, or be unlimited? -- Cliff Wickman Silicon Graphics, Inc. cpw@sgi.com (651) 683-3824 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/