On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:57:55 +0300 Tom Alsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> As discovered here today, the change in Kernel 2.6.17 intended to
> inhibit users from setting RLIMIT_CPU to 0 (as that is equivalent to
> unlimited) by "cheating" and setting it to 1 in such a case, does
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:57:55 +0300 Tom Alsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there.
As discovered here today, the change in Kernel 2.6.17 intended to
inhibit users from setting RLIMIT_CPU to 0 (as that is equivalent to
unlimited) by cheating and setting it to 1 in such a case, does not
make
Hi there.
As discovered here today, the change in Kernel 2.6.17 intended to
inhibit users from setting RLIMIT_CPU to 0 (as that is equivalent to
unlimited) by "cheating" and setting it to 1 in such a case, does not
make a difference, as the check is done in the wrong place (too late),
and only
Hi there.
As discovered here today, the change in Kernel 2.6.17 intended to
inhibit users from setting RLIMIT_CPU to 0 (as that is equivalent to
unlimited) by cheating and setting it to 1 in such a case, does not
make a difference, as the check is done in the wrong place (too late),
and only
4 matches
Mail list logo
