Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:24:22 +0100 | From | Jan Rekorajski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please |
| |
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi! > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~ Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > > > *p = *current; > > > > > > > > retval = -EAGAIN; > > > > - if (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur) > > > > + if (p->user->uid && > > > > + (atomic_read(&p->user->processes) >= p->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur)) > > > > > > Jan, > > > > > > Hardcoding things signifying special treatment of uid=0 is almost always a > > > bad idea. If you _really_ think that superuser (whatever entity that might > > > be) should be exempt from RLIMIT_NPROC and can prove that (SuSv2 seems to > > > be silent so you may be right), then you should use capable() to do proper > > > capability test and not that horrible explicit uid test as in your patch > > > above. > > > > Ok, how about setting limits on login? When this looks like: > > > > --- uid = 0 here > > setrlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC, n) > > fork() <- this will fail if root has >n processes > > setuid(user) > > > > and it is hard to change this sequence, all PAM enabled apps depend > > on it :( > > So PAM dictates kernel changes? Fix pam, do not break kernel.
Fixed :)
Jan -- Jan Rękorajski | ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD! baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY? BOFH, type MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |