Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

From: Alan Cox
Date: Sun Aug 20 2006 - 15:10:30 EST

Ar Sul, 2006-08-20 am 21:01 +0200, ysgrifennodd Willy Tarreau:
> 2.4 has no printk_ratelimit() function and I'm not sure it's worth adding
> one for only this user. One could argue that once it's implemented, we can
> uncomment some other warnings that are currently disabled due to lack of
> ratelimit.

Agreed. But if it isnt ratelimited then people will be able to use it
flush other "interesting" log messages out of existance...

> In this special case (set*uid), the only reason we might fail is because
> kmem_cache_alloc(uid_cachep, SLAB_KERNEL) would return NULL. Do you think
> it could intentionnally be tricked into failing, or that under OOM we might
> bother about the excess of messages ?
> If so I can backport the printk_ratelimit() function, I would just like an
> advice on this.

If there are multiple potential users then a backport might be sensible

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at