Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:50:24 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Why is setrlimit() considered to have per-thread effect? * Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru> [2020-10-15 08:01:00 +0300]: > Commit 544ee752cd claims that setrlimit() is per-thread on Linux, > similarly to setxid() calls, so it should be called via __synccall(). But > this appears to be wrong: the kernel code operates on tsk->signal, which > is a per-thread-group structure. Glibc doesn't call setrlimit() for each > thread either. Am I missing something? note that prlimit does not have synccall in musl: the kernel implemented the per process rlimit setting when prlimit was added. (i think this is linux commit 1c1e618ddd15f69fd87ccea596769f78c8065504 ) but older kernels don't have that. > > Tangentially, setgroups() is not called via __synccall(), though it does > have per-thread effect. Is this intentional? that may be a bug, but it's not a posix api so not a conformance issue, but a linux issue: if other linux libcs don't do synccall then that's the defacto interface contract. > > Alexey > >  https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=544ee752cd38febfa3aa3798b4dfb6fabd13846b >  https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9/source/kernel/sys.c#L1566
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.