Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Orcan Ogetbil
On 20 September 2016 at 03:00, Thomas Daede wrote: > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per user > is 64kiB, which less than what some applications need. > > In particular, Bitcoin Core uses mlock() to prevent private keys from > being swapped to disk. The total size of t

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 18:05, Björn Persson wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Oh, GNOME keyring still works mostly fine, it just fails to lock the > > memory to prevent it from being paged to disk. It only really matters > > if you're running some ultra-secure military/government s

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Björn Persson
Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Oh, GNOME keyring still works mostly fine, it just fails to lock the > memory to prevent it from being paged to disk. It only really matters > if you're running some ultra-secure military/government stuff, but it's > not how it was designed to work. Although I can't fin

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 13:29 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It also shouldn't be necessary to have to faff around with memory > limits to do ordinary operations like starting a VM or trying to use > GNOME keyring.  The 64K limit is obviously much too low. Oh, GNOME keyring still works mostly fi

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:27:25AM +0200, Joachim Backes wrote: > The command "ulimit -l ..." lets you control such a limit. See > command ulimit -a: I think everyone's well aware of that. That doesn't help when we were trying to run ppc64 qemu instances, since those were launched from libvirtd,

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Joachim Backes
On 09/21/16 08:31, Sylvia wrote: I think yes, that's the reason. Besides, I agree with Björn about setting a 1% of the total memory. The command "ulimit -l ..." lets you control such a limit. See command ulimit -a: core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited data seg size (kby

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Sylvia
I think yes, that's the reason.  Besides, I agree with Björn about setting a 1% of the total memory. Cheers,  Sylvia On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:40 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 00:00 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memo

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 00:00 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per > user > is 64kiB, which less than what some applications need. Could this be why memory locking in seahorse/gnome-keyring has been broken for years? _

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Björn Persson
Thomas Daede wrote: > The reason for the restriction is presumably an anti-DoS measure for > multi-user systems. It's not really clear where the 64kiB value came > from though - it seems like it could be much, much higher. How about 1% of the total system memory? That would be tens of megabytes p

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Sylvia
Hello! I think it's reasonable to raise the value, not sure how much, but definitely should be higher. Cheers, Sylvia On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 00:00 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per user > is 64kiB, which less than what some applica