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.
Pavel
-- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:25 EST