On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:54:48AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> > | > Instead, you'll crank your file limits to... let me guess, unlimited? >> > | > >> > | > And when you hit the system-wide limit, then what happens? >> > | > >> > | > Then it is our systems problem, isn't it. >> > | > >> > | >> > | i am not sure if you're a suggesting that each program do getrlimit >> > | and acquire resources based on that, because it's a pita >> > >> > Gee whiz, writing programs is hard! B Let's go shopping! >> > >> > | what they could do is offer a reliable estimate (e.g. 5 open files per >> > | tab required) >> > >> > Or just try to open a file, *CHECK THE RETURNED ERROR CODE* and (if >> > any) *DEAL WITH IT* >> >> but we're only talking about one resource and one error condition >> >> write wrappers for open, malloc, etc >> >> avoiding errors regarding stack limits is not as easy > > There are very few programs that actually hit stack limits. MOst cases > it's unbounded recursion, signalling an error.
doesn't change the fact that preempting it takes modifying your compiler's typical function prelude (and slowing down each call) additionally, anticipating FSIZE would greatly slow done each write so no, you can't just "be correct" all the time and pat your self on the back > >> >> obviously there's no reason for: a. every application replicating >> these wrappers (how many xmallocs have you seen, honest?) and b. the >> system not providing a consistent api > > Nah, you cannot create a apifor this stuff, proper error handling and > adaptation to recousrce limits is a program specfic thing. well, if including logic that gracefully handles the stack limit is not important on the basis of most application's needs, then i don't see how the reverse relation couldn't justify a library with xmalloc and similar. *most* applications that implement this function copy paste the same fatal version. see also `#define MIN/MAX` > >> >> after you're done writing all the wrappers for your crappy browser, >> what do you do? notify the user that no resources can be allocated, >> try pushing the soft limit first, whatever. they still have to re-exec >> with higher limits >> >> why even bother? > > Stop using the crappy program. We prefer to apply back pressure to > crappy programming instead of accommodating it. > > B B B B -Otto > >> >> > >> > >> > Note that on a busy system, the ulimit is not the only thing holding >> > you back. B You may actually run into the maximum number of files the >> > system can have open at any given time (sure, that's also tweakable). >> > Just doing getrlimit isn't going to be sufficient... >> >> doesn't matter >> >> > >> > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd >> > >> > -- >> >>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+ >> > +++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-] >> > B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B http://www.weirdnet.nl/
