Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-30 Thread Tigran Aivazian
> > > Hardcoding things signifying special treatment of uid=0 is almost always a > > > bad idea. If you _really_ think that superuser (whatever entity that might > > > be) should be exempt from RLIMIT_NPROC and can prove that (SuSv2 seems to > > > be silent so you may be right), then you should us

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-30 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > > > *p = *current; > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-30 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~ Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > > *p = *current; > > > > > > retval = -EAGAIN; > > > - if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel j= > > ob 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 t

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank v Waveren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote: >> > Because you want to be able to `kill `? >> > And if you are over-limits you can't? >> Wrong. limit is a shell built in > >I assume you mean kill is a shell bu

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Frank v Waveren
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > Because you want to be able to `kill `? > > And if you are over-limits you can't? > Wrong. limit is a shell built in I assume you mean kill is a shell builtin. Depending on your shell. :-). It's still a real pain when you want to get t

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Alan Cox
> > 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? Wrong. limit is a shell built in - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Alan Cox
> Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel j= > ob 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. This patch is bogus. root can always raise

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 lim

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Andreas Schwab
Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > *p = *current; > > > > retval = -EAGAIN; > > - if (ato

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Andreas Dilger
Jan R_korajski 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. > - if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur) By default, root has no real process limits anyways, so th

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Tigran Aivazian
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > *p = *current; > > > > retval = -EAGAIN; > > - if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIM

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Tigran Aivazian
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~ Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > *p = *current; > > retval = -EAGAIN; > - if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPR

[PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
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. --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 200