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    [W:0.020 / U:30.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site