Re: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK?

[Joerg Schilling]

Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > hmm... curious that mlockall() succeeds with only a 32kb rlimit....
>
> It's quite obvious with the seteuid() shuffling behind the scenes of the
> app, for the mlockall() runs with euid==0, and the later mmap() with euid!=0.
>
> Clearly the application should do both with the same privilege or raise
> the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK while running with privileges.
>
> The question that's open is one for the libc guys: malloc(), valloc()
> and others seem to use mmap() on some occasions (for some allocation
> sizes) - at least malloc/malloc.c comments as of 2.3.4 suggest so -, and
> if this isn't orthogonal to mlockall() and set[e]uid() calls, the glibc
> is pretty deeply in trouble if the code calls mlockall(MLC_FUTURE) and
> then drops privileges.

If the behavior described by Matthias is true for current Linuc kernels,
then there is a clean bug that needs fixing.

If the Linux kernel is not willing to accept the contract by 
mlockall(MLC_FUTURE), then it should now accept the call at all.

In our case, the kernel did accept the call to mlockall(MLC_FUTURE), but later 
ignores this contract. This bug should be fixed.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                (uni)  
       schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/