* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> This has to be considered a bug. The spec certainly implies that a
> limit of zero should be honoured and, probably more importantly,
> that's how it works in 2.4.
>
> Problem is, the code in there all assumes that an it_prof_expires of
> zero means "it was never set", and changing that (add a yes-it-has
> flag?) would be less than trivial.
>
> So I think the path of least resistance here is to just convert the
> caller's zero seconds into one second. That in fact gives the same
> behaviour as 2.4: you get whacked after one second or more CPU time.
>
> (This is not a final patch - that revolting expression in
> sys_setrlimit() needs help first).
your approach looks good to me. It doesnt make much sense anyway to have
a task whacked right after startup ... so adding a common-sense "the
user must have meant some really small value" thing doesnt look all that
wrong.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
