lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK?
From
Date
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 19:01 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > yes the behavior is like this
> >
> > root non-root
> > before about half of ram nothing
> > after all of ram by default small, increasable
> > [...]
> > What application do you have in mind that broke by this relaxing of
> > rules?
>
> This is not something I'd like to disclose here yet.
>
> It is an application that calls mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE) and
> apparently copes with mlockall() returning EPERM

hmm... curious that mlockall() succeeds with only a 32kb rlimit....


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-23 19:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans