linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: prlimit64: inconsistencies between kernel and userland

To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: prlimit64: inconsistencies between kernel and userland
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:22:03 -0500
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, aurelien@aurel32.net, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1311050058580.9883@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20130628133835.GA21839@hall.aurel32.net> <20131104213756.GD18700@hall.aurel32.net> <20131104.194519.1657797548878784116.davem@davemloft.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1311050058580.9883@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:04:45AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
> > Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:37:56 +0100
> > 
> > > Any news about this issue? It really starts to causes a lot of issues in
> > > Debian. I have added a Cc: to libc people so that we can also hear their
> > > opinion.
> > 
> > I had the same exact problem on sparc several years ago, I simply fixed
> > the glibc header value, it's the only way to fix this.
> > 
> > Yes, that means you then have to recompile applications and libraries
> > that reference this value.
> 
> Surely you can create new symbol versions for getrlimit64 and setrlimit64, 
> with the old versions just using the 32-bit syscalls (or otherwise 
> translating between conventions, but using the 32-bit syscalls is the 
> simplest approach)?  I see no need to break compatibility with existing 
> binaries.
> 
> As I noted in 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2006-05/msg00020.html>, at that time 
> the value of RLIM64_INFINITY for o32/n32 was purely a glibc convention the 
> kernel didn't see at all.  It's only with the use of newer syscalls that 
> this glibc convention is any sort of problem.

Why not just make them convert any value >= 0x7fffffffffffffff to
infinity before making the syscall? There's certainly no meaningful
use for finite values in that range...

Rich

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>