Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760737AbYB2SNx (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:13:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752556AbYB2SN2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:13:28 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.13]:54006 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751011AbYB2SN1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:13:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:12:26 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Peter Zijlstra cc: Michael Kerrisk , aaw , Andrew Morton , michael.kerrisk@gmail.com, carlos@codesourcery.com, Alan Cox , linux-kernel , drepper@redhat.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX In-Reply-To: <1204306934.6243.119.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <1204119455.6242.403.camel@lappy> <1204305488.6243.113.camel@lappy> <1204306934.6243.119.camel@lappy> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3226 Lines: 67 On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > More importantly, isn't it better to just use the whole stack size then > > Well, we ran into trouble of freshly spawned tasks faulting on the first > stack grow. The /4 thing was to avoid that situation. Yeah, I do see the point of wanting slop, but maybe the right thing to do is simply to just not make the slop be 75% of it all ;) The thing is, RLIMIT_STACK has never been "exact" in the first place (ie it has *always* contained the argument and environment as a part of it), and that is really traditional behaviour even outside of Linux. And I seriously doubt that RLIMIT_ARG_MAX really buys people anything truly wonderful, and it definitely adds just another thing you can screw up and make the system just behave differently depending on a config value that doesn't even matter to the kernel. In fact, even with that patch, it's *still* not going to handle the difference between the actual string space and the pointers themselves, or even all the other setup stuff that the binary loaders will put on the stack. So it's not *going* to be exact even with RLIMIT_ARG_MAX, because it's going to have all those other issues to contend with - on a 64-bit architecture, the argument _pointers_ are often within an order of magnitude of the argument strings themselves, and I don't think your patch counted them as part of the argument/environemnt size (I was too lazy to check the sources, but I'm pretty sure argv/env_start/end is just the string space, not the pointers). So rather than introduce a new thing that is not going to be trustworthy anyway, I'd much rather just remove the limit entirely. Also, it all boils down to the fact that the whole argument is utter crap: > POSIX disallows sysconf() variables to change during the execution of a > process, so even if it would ask the kernel for a value, we could not > give a sane answer. If the resource limits change, then it makes not a whit of a difference whether _SC_ARG_MAX changes or not, because it's not going to reflect reality. So you might as well just continue to give the value we've always given (128k? I don't remember). Because it's not going to be the "real" value *anyway*. This whole argument seems pointless. Has anybody ever really cared? Why not just keep _SC_ARG_MAX at the old (small) limit, and then the fact that 99% of all programs won't even care, and that they can actually use much larger limits in real life is just gravy. A *good* implementation would generally just do the execve() with the maximal arguments, and only bother to see "oh, maybe I can split it up" if it returns ENOMEM or whatever it does. So I don't see the practical value here - _SC_ARG_MAX is not worth having another tweaking value for that people will just always get wrogn anyway because there is no right answer (except "I don't want my stack to grow too large" where it's just one of the relevant things) Linus -- 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/