On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 16:46:26 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
> > > worked in a predictable way:
> > this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we
> > changed the address space layout, or even today if you have an unlimited
> > stack rlimit) this isn't going to work. applications really shouldn't
> > use (s)brk() but malloc(); you have to be able to fall back to mmap
> > regardless of what you do.
>
> I tend to agree here with Arjan. However it probably would make no harm to
> make at least a little bit consisten behavior of setrlimit(), though it
> has a little use in such cases.
>
> Sami, does the patch below work for you?
Thanks, Jiri, now RLIMIT_DATA works as expected.
Using only RLIMIT_AS to limit processes' memory usage is not
very easy. It includes also libraries mapped read-only,
I have to check/modify the limits when I update/add
libraries,...
Amazingly, I found a patch which seems to be just what I need:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118402827803338&w=4
Seems like that is not going to -mm or mainstream...
--
Do what you love because life is too short for anything else.
-
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]
