Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:49:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:49:24 -0500 Received: from sith.mimuw.edu.pl ([193.0.97.1]:23815 "HELO sith.mimuw.edu.pl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:49:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:20:40 +0100 From: Jan Rekorajski To: Andreas Schwab Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please Message-ID: <20001128222040.H2680@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Rekorajski , Andreas Schwab , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20001128214309.F2680@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <200011282111.eASLB6k05926@hawking.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011282111.eASLB6k05926@hawking.suse.de>; from schwab@suse.de on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:11:07PM +0100 X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.0-test11-pre6 i686 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jan Rekorajski writes: > > |> Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to > |> prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot. > |> > |> root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits, > |> and IMHO the following patch is the right thing. > > AFAICS, _all_ resource limits are equally applied to root processes. Why > should NPROC be different? Because you want to be able to `kill `? And if you are over-limits you can't? Jan -- Jan R?korajski | ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD! bagginsmimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY? BOFH, type MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/