Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933468AbYB2Tt3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:49:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759111AbYB2TtU (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:49:20 -0500 Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com ([216.239.58.188]:15099 "EHLO gv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758449AbYB2TtT (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:49:19 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=H/LDh0ILcp3fobzEe5mmazcI6meUzIUnjwDduwzN2U4DND1YGbeSwA7cFKvyVWXgybx/cm4vQ8WEqz7MuLRIZQKuIW2VmIUxXd7TnmmSDw1/OPdjlrxVaNrLDkpS4xqHWxaiAVJq4OFTv/qtCkAbIn2JKWuK0x2TqA3mSoPGVMM= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:49:16 +0100 From: "Michael Kerrisk" To: "Linus Torvalds" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" , aaw , "Andrew Morton" , carlos@codesourcery.com, "Alan Cox" , linux-kernel , drepper@redhat.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, "Geoff Clare" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1204119455.6242.403.camel@lappy> <1204305244.6243.111.camel@lappy> <1204307756.6243.121.camel@lappy> <47C84C6C.2000201@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1802 Lines: 39 On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > My reading of POSIX.1 (and POSIX doesn't seem very explicit on this point), is > > that the limits on argv+environ and on stack are decoupled, since POSIX > > specifies RLIMIT_STACK and sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) and doesn't specify any > > relationship between the two. > > I agree. And clearly there _are_ relationships and always have been, but > equally clearly they simply haven't been a big issue in practice, and > nobody really cares. Do we know that for sure? > Usually, _SC_ARG_MAX is just so much smaller than RLIMIT_STACK that it > makes no possible difference. Which I would actually argue we should just > continue with: just keep _SC_ARG_MAX a smallish, irrelevant constant. > > We still have to have the compile-time ARG_MAX constant (as in *real* > constant - a #define) anyway, for traditional programs, and you might as > well make sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) always just match ARG_MAX. > > It's not like there is likely a single user of _SC_ARG_MAX that cares. In my initial reply, I pointed out one example where users *may* care: NPTL uses RLIMIT_STACK to determine the size of per-thread stacks. It is conceivable that users might want to set RLIMIT_STACK < 512k, and that would have the effect of lowering the amount of space for argv+eviron below what the kernel has historically guaranteed. That's an ABI change, though it's unclear whether it would impact anyone in practice. -- 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/