linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: prlimit64: inconsistencies between kernel and userland

To: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Subject: Re: prlimit64: inconsistencies between kernel and userland
From: Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:58:59 +0100
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, aurelien@aurel32.net, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20131105012203.GA24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
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> <20131105012203.GA24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
* Rich Felker (dalias@aerifal.cx) [131105 02:22]:
> 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...

Or just replace 0x7fffffffffffffff by kernels infinity - and still
fixing glibc, because the same value as the kernel should be the right
answer long term.


Andi

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