Re: [PATCH 0/3] extend get/setrlimit to support setting rlimits externalto a process (v7)

From: Jiri Slaby
Date: Fri Nov 06 2009 - 05:01:00 EST

On 11/06/2009 10:26 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Jiri, i think your patches are incomplete for the same reasons i
> outlined to Neil.

I'll examine that. Thanks for pointing out.

> Also, the locking there looks messy:
> + /* optimization: 'current' doesn't need locking, e.g. setrlimit */
> + if (tsk != current) {
> + /* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + if (!tsk->sighand) {
> + retval = -ESRCH;
> + goto out;
> + }
> }
> Neil's splitup into a helper function looks _far_ cleaner.

Then, I think, we should join our efforts.

> I'm also wondering, how did these commits get into linux-next? It
> appears that that the 'writable_limits' tree got added by sfr to
> linux-next on Oct 26 just based on Jiri's request, without acks/review
> from the people generally involved with this code.

I posted the patches three times. The first, we discussed with Oleg
Nesterov the whole thing (with you in CC btw) and I resent changed code
(v2) based on Oleg's input. Then, after a month and a half I reposted
whole patchset simply because nobody cared/commented. Waited another 10
days and got pissed off (that I'm ignored for no obvious reason) so that
I asked Stephen (publicly) to include it in the -next. He did, I
wouldn't say it's all his fault. I must add that selinux security guys
cooperated with me on the first patches.

I hoped for anybody's raised voice: nobody's :(. Is there anything I did
wrong? Who are the people to get an ACK from in this case?

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