Re: [TRIVIAL] Re: setrlimit incorrectly allows hard limits to exceed

[Peter Chubb]

>>>>> "Rik" == Rik van Riel <[e-mail]> writes:

Rik> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Peter Chubb wrote: Wouldn't it be better to
Rik> simply take the soft limit down to min(new_rlim.rlim_cur,
Rik> new_rlim.rlim_max) ?
>> Single unix spec says to return EINVAL in this case.
>> 
>> [EINVAL] An invalid resource was specified; or in a setrlimit()
>> call, the new rlim_cur exceeds the new rlim_max.

Rik> So how about "the old rlim_cur exceeds the new rlim_max" ? ;)

You always have to set both, so the old value is irrelevant, except in
so far as rlim_max may not be increased except by a privileged
process.

setrlimit may return EINVAL if the actual usage is above the new
rlim_cur.

--
Dr Peter Chubb				    [e-mail]
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all almost the same.