Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:50:41 +0300 From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Why is setrlimit() considered to have per-thread effect? On 2020-10-15 11:50, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > 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. > Ah, thank you for checking that, though the transition appear to have happened much earlier than the commit you referenced (which is not relevant), in pre-git epoch between 2.6.9 and 2.6.10[1, 2]. I was confused because Linux man pages never mention that and explicitly say "Resource limits are per-process attributes that are shared by all of the threads in a process.", but I should have checked old sources. >> 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. > FWIW, glibc does synccall since 2011: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=70181fddf14  https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v2.6.9/source/kernel/sys.c#L1537  https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v2.6.10/source/kernel/sys.c#L1487  https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/setrlimit.2.html
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.