This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: prlimit64: inconsistencies between kernel and userland

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:04:45AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Aurelien Jarno <>
> > Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:37:56 +0100
> > 
> > > Any news about this issue? It really starts to causes a lot of issues in
> > > Debian. I have added a Cc: to libc people so that we can also hear their
> > > opinion.
> > 
> > I had the same exact problem on sparc several years ago, I simply fixed
> > the glibc header value, it's the only way to fix this.
> > 
> > Yes, that means you then have to recompile applications and libraries
> > that reference this value.
> Surely you can create new symbol versions for getrlimit64 and setrlimit64, 
> with the old versions just using the 32-bit syscalls (or otherwise 
> translating between conventions, but using the 32-bit syscalls is the 
> simplest approach)?  I see no need to break compatibility with existing 
> binaries.
> As I noted in 
> <>, at that time 
> the value of RLIM64_INFINITY for o32/n32 was purely a glibc convention the 
> kernel didn't see at all.  It's only with the use of newer syscalls that 
> this glibc convention is any sort of problem.

Why not just make them convert any value >= 0x7fffffffffffffff to
infinity before making the syscall? There's certainly no meaningful
use for finite values in that range...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]