Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933517AbYB2Un7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:43:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758733AbYB2Unt (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:43:49 -0500 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.172]:40280 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758137AbYB2Unr (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:43:47 -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=qpcox5Wn5JCsULAJ+wSzDJFUwim2lUMxbr+gg0o33ZT9OtJAtkZK89/cuEuzhgVSCC/mFBHV+BKWAPRe4QRDdESpFxgFKvzJXkZguT0+NsVo+4KnzzcIzK2juQS+dGScyPRwoLRLdVAN9SM4ne2TZhAka4jZgd0cFUHk+oiY8/I= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:43:45 +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: 2489 Lines: 64 On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > We *do* know for sure that the relationship has always been there. At > least in Linux, and I bet in 99% of all other Unixes too. The arguments > simply have traditionally been counted as part of the stack size. > > Or did you mean the latter part? I meant: do we know for sure that no one really cares? > The fact is, we *also* know for sure that anybody that depends on > _SC_ARG_MAX being exact has always - and will continue to be - broken. > Again, because of not only older kernels but also because even with the > patch in question, we don't count argument sizes exactly. > > > > 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. > > I do agree that we should at least make the "MAX(stacksize/4, 128k)" > change for backwards compatibility. Good -- because that's probably the most important point, IMO. > That is actually a potential > regression, but it has nothing to do with a new _SC_ARG_SIZE, because > quite frankly, it's a regression *regardless* of whether we'd expose a new > rlimit or not! Agreed. The new rlimit is primarily for the (supposed) applications that care about knowing (at least approximately) what _SC_ARG_MAX is. I raised the initial bug report against glibc because applications can no longer (post 2.6.23) do this, but I haven't done the investigation about how many applications actually care. Cheers, Michael -- 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/