Techwizz/kernel-fxtec-pro1x
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

[PATCH] RLIMIT_CPU: fix handling of a zero limit

Browse source 
At present the kernel doesn't honour an attempt to set RLIMIT_CPU to zero
seconds.  But the spec says it should, and that's what 2.4.x does.

Fixing this for real would involve some complexity (such as adding a new
it-has-been-set flag to the task_struct, and testing that everwhere, instead
of overloading the value of it_prof_expires).

Given that a 2.4 kernel won't actually send the signal until one second has
expired anyway, let's just handle this case by treating the caller's
zero-seconds as one second.

Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This commit is contained in:
Andrew Morton 2006-03-24 03:18:35 -08:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent ec9e16bacd
commit e0661111e5
1 changed files with 12 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
kernel/sys.c
View file

@ -1661,8 +1661,19 @@ asmlinkage long sys_setrlimit(unsigned int resource, struct rlimit __user *rlim)
it_prof_secs = cputime_to_secs(current->signal->it_prof_expires);
if (it_prof_secs == 0 || new_rlim.rlim_cur <= it_prof_secs) {
cputime_t cputime = secs_to_cputime(new_rlim.rlim_cur);
unsigned long rlim_cur = new_rlim.rlim_cur;
cputime_t cputime;
if (rlim_cur == 0) {
/*
* The caller is asking for an immediate RLIMIT_CPU
* expiry. But we use the zero value to mean "it was
* never set". So let's cheat and make it one second
* instead
*/
rlim_cur = 1;
}
cputime = secs_to_cputime(rlim_cur);
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
set_process_cpu_timer(current, CPUCLOCK_PROF, &cputime, NULL);