Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422738AbWBNWYV (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:24:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422806AbWBNWYV (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:24:21 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:43207 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422738AbWBNWYU (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:24:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:24:17 -0600 From: Cliff Wickman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16 Message-ID: <20060214222417.GA8479@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: 870 Lines: 28 A test suite uncovered a possible bug in setrlimit(2), in 2.6.16-rc3. 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. Whereas, 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 this a correction, or a bug? Is a cpu time limit of 0 supposed to limit a task to 0 seconds, or leave it 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/