Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
From:   Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
To:     Zhuohao Bai <zhuohao_bai@foxmail.com>
Cc:     steved@redhat.com, falcon@tinylab.org, forrestniu@foxmail.com,
        baizhh21@lzu.edu.cn, tanyuan@tinylab.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, libtirpc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] _rpc_dtablesize: Decrease the value of size.
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:08:41 -0400
Message-ID: <EAA0AA43-7CAA-4D74-9DD0-4CC738D71D47@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_E6816C9AF53E61BA5E0A313BBE5E1D19B00A@qq.com>
References: <tencent_E6816C9AF53E61BA5E0A313BBE5E1D19B00A@qq.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On 25 Oct 2023, at 12:27, Zhuohao Bai wrote:

> In the client code, the function _rpc_dtablesize() is used to determine=
 the memory allocation for the __svc_xports array.
>
> However, some operating systems (including the recent Manjaro OS) can h=
ave _SC_OPEN_MAX values as high as 1073741816, which can cause the __svc_=
xports array to become too large. This results in the process being kille=
d.

This is addressed by several users of rpc_dtablesize() already, which all=
 seem to do:

    setsize =3D _rpc_dtablesize();
    if (setsize > FD_SETSIZE)
        setsize =3D FD_SETSIZE;

Does it make sense to try to fix it for everyone, and should we clean up =
the users?

Ben