[patch 17/22] RLIMIT_CPU: fix handling of a zero limit

-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

At present the kernel doesn't honour an attempt to set RLIMIT_CPU to zero
seconds.  But the spec says it should, and that's what 2.4.x does.

Fixing this for real would involve some complexity (such as adding a new
it-has-been-set flag to the task_struct, and testing that everwhere, instead
of overloading the value of it_prof_expires).

Given that a 2.4 kernel won't actually send the signal until one second has
expired anyway, let's just handle this case by treating the caller's
zero-seconds as one second.

Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
Cc: Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>
Cc: Cliff Wickman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

---

 kernel/sys.c |   14 +++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

e0661111e5441995f7a69dc4336c9f131cb9bc58
--- linux-2.6.16.5.orig/kernel/sys.c
+++ linux-2.6.16.5/kernel/sys.c
@@ -1657,7 +1657,19 @@ asmlinkage long sys_setrlimit(unsigned i
 	    (cputime_eq(current->signal->it_prof_expires, cputime_zero) ||
 	     new_rlim.rlim_cur <= cputime_to_secs(
 		     current->signal->it_prof_expires))) {
-		cputime_t cputime = secs_to_cputime(new_rlim.rlim_cur);
+		unsigned long rlim_cur = new_rlim.rlim_cur;
+		cputime_t cputime;
+
+		if (rlim_cur == 0) {
+			/*
+			 * The caller is asking for an immediate RLIMIT_CPU
+			 * expiry.  But we use the zero value to mean "it was
+			 * never set".  So let's cheat and make it one second
+			 * instead
+			 */
+			rlim_cur = 1;
+		}
+		cputime = secs_to_cputime(rlim_cur);
 		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 		spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
 		set_process_cpu_timer(current, CPUCLOCK_PROF,

--
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [patch 00/22] -stable review
    • From: Greg KH <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [patch 16/22] Fix utime(2) in the case that no times parameter was passed in.
• Next by Date: [patch 18/22] Incorrect signature sent on SMB Read
• Previous by thread: [patch 16/22] Fix utime(2) in the case that no times parameter was passed in.
• Next by thread: [patch 18/22] Incorrect signature sent on SMB Read
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]