Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751178AbXAIOjf (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:39:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751181AbXAIOjf (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:39:35 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:58630 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178AbXAIOje (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:39:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:39:12 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: "Kawai, Hidehiro" Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de, james.bottomley@steeleye.com, Satoshi OSHIMA , "Hideo AOKI@redhat" , sugita , Masami Hiramatsu , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: core dump masking support Message-ID: <20070109143912.GC19787@elf.ucw.cz> References: <457FA840.5000107@hitachi.com> <20061213132358.ddcaaaf4.akpm@osdl.org> <20061220154056.GA4261@ucw.cz> <45A2EADF.3030807@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45A2EADF.3030807@hitachi.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1513 Lines: 37 Hi! > > > When a new process is created, the process inherits the coremask > > > setting from its parent. It is useful to set the coremask before > > > the program runs. For example: > > > > > > $ echo 1 > /proc/self/coremask > > > $ ./some_program > > > > User can already ulimit -c 0 on himself, perhaps we want to use same > > interface here? ulimit -cmask=(bitmask)? > > Are you saying that 1) it is good to change ulimit (shell programs) > so that shell programs will read/write /proc/self/coremask when > the -cmask option is given to ulimit? > Or, 2) it is good to change ulimit and get/setrlimit so that shell > programs will invoke get/setrlimit with new parameter? I'm trying to say 2). > If the changes are acceptable to bash or other shell community, I think > the first approach is nice. > But the second approach is problematic because the bitmask doesn't > conform to the usage of setrlimit. You know, setrlimit controls amount > of resources the system can use by the soft limit and hard limit. > These limitations don't suit for the bitmask. Well, you can have it as set of 0-1 "limits"... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/