[hmm: "550 5.7.1 recipient <[email protected]> unknown #291", trying your @gmail.com. I also need to learn that it's linux-api, not linux-abi]
On Friday 23 January 2009, [email protected] wrote: > > The solution to this problem would require new setrlimit64() and > getrlimit64() system calls on x86, and the existing 32-bit system calls > would need to be retained so that existing binaries would still run. When adding new syscalls, please Cc: [email protected] and [email protected] to get attention from all parties that are involved. > diff -uNrp -X linux-2.6.29-rc2/Documentation/dontdiff > linux-2.6.29-rc2/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S > linux-2.6.29-rc2-rlim64/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S > --- linux-2.6.29-rc2/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S 2009-01-17 > 09:54:06.000000000 +0530 > +++ linux-2.6.29-rc2-rlim64/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S > 2009-01-17 19:15:52.000000000 +0530 > @@ -332,3 +332,5 @@ ENTRY(sys_call_table) > .long sys_dup3 /* 330 */ > .long sys_pipe2 > .long sys_inotify_init1 > + .long sys_setrlimit64 > + .long sys_getrlimit64 This only adds the calls to the native 32 bit build, but not to the 32-on-64 compat code in arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S (or any of the other architectures. > --- linux-2.6.29-rc2/kernel/ChangeLog 1970-01-01 05:30:00.000000000 +0530 > +++ linux-2.6.29-rc2-rlim64/kernel/ChangeLog 2009-01-17 19:15:50.000000000 > +0530 > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > +2008-01-17 Narendra Prasad <[email protected]> > + Problem Description: > + The following issue affects the setrlimit() and getrlimit() system > calls on Linux 2.6.13 (and earlier) on x86. > + The Problem is filed at kernel.org bug 5042 > (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5042) > + Design Approach: > + Add two system calls sys_setrlimit64()/sys_getrlimit64(). > + And a type 'struct rlimit64' to accomodate more no. of limits <= > 2^64-1 > + Implementation Details: > + Inclusions: struct rlimit64, struct rlimit64 > + rlim64[RLIM64_NRLIMITS] to task_struct The changelog is the git history, please don't add other files for this. > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(setrlimit64, unsigned int, resource, > + struct rlimit64 __user *, rlim) > +{ > + struct rlimit64 new_rlim; > + struct rlimit *old_rlim, new_value; > + unsigned long it_prof_secs; > + int retval; > + > + if (resource >= RLIM_NLIMITS) > + return -EINVAL; > + if (copy_from_user(&new_rlim, rlim, sizeof(*rlim))) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + if (resource == RLIMIT_FSIZE) { > + struct rlimit64 *old_rlim; > + struct rlimit *old_value; > + > + old_rlim = current->signal->rlim64 + resource; > + if (((new_rlim.rlim64_cur > old_rlim->rlim64_max) || > + (new_rlim.rlim64_max > old_rlim->rlim64_max)) && > + !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) > + return -EPERM; > + *old_rlim = new_rlim; > + if (new_rlim.rlim64_cur > RLIM_INFINITY) > + new_rlim.rlim64_cur = RLIM_INFINITY; > + if (new_rlim.rlim64_max > RLIM_INFINITY) > + new_rlim.rlim64_max = RLIM_INFINITY; > + > + task_lock(current->group_leader); > + old_value = (current->signal->rlim + resource); > + old_value->rlim_max = new_rlim.rlim64_max; > + old_value->rlim_cur = new_rlim.rlim64_cur; > + task_unlock(current->group_leader); > + > + return 0; > + } > + > + old_rlim = current->signal->rlim + resource; > + if (new_rlim.rlim64_cur > RLIM_INFINITY) > + new_rlim.rlim64_cur = RLIM_INFINITY; > + if (new_rlim.rlim64_max > RLIM_INFINITY) > + new_rlim.rlim64_max = RLIM_INFINITY; > + if (((new_rlim.rlim64_cur > old_rlim->rlim_max) || > + (new_rlim.rlim64_max > old_rlim->rlim_max)) && > + !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) > + return -EPERM; > + if (resource == RLIMIT_NOFILE) { > + if (new_rlim.rlim64_cur > INR_OPEN || > + new_rlim.rlim64_max > INR_OPEN) > + return -EPERM; > + } > + new_value.rlim_max = new_rlim.rlim64_max; > + new_value.rlim_cur = new_rlim.rlim64_cur; > + retval = security_task_setrlimit(resource, &new_value); > + if (retval) > + return retval; > + > + if (resource == RLIMIT_CPU && new_value.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 > + */ > + new_value.rlim_cur = 1; > + } > + > + task_lock(current->group_leader); > + *old_rlim = new_value; > + task_unlock(current->group_leader); > + > + if (resource != RLIMIT_CPU) > + goto out; > + > + /* > + * RLIMIT_CPU handling. Note that the kernel fails to return an error > + * code if it rejected the user's attempt to set RLIMIT_CPU. This is a > + * very long-standing error, and fixing it now risks breakage of > + * applications, so we live with it > + */ > + if (new_value.rlim_cur == RLIM_INFINITY) > + goto out; > + > + it_prof_secs = cputime_to_secs(current->signal->it_prof_expires); > + if (it_prof_secs == 0 || new_value.rlim_cur <= it_prof_secs) { > + unsigned long rlim_cur = new_value.rlim_cur; > + cputime_t cputime; > + > + cputime = secs_to_cputime(rlim_cur); > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > + set_process_cpu_timer(current, CPUCLOCK_PROF, &cputime, NULL); > + spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > + } > +out: > + return 0; > +} This function is rather long, and duplicates most of the existing set_rlimit syscall. You should consolidate the two so you get no duplication. You can probably add a static do_setrlimit(unsigned int resource, struct rlimit64 *rlim); helper function that gets called by both setrlimit and setrlimit64 (also compat_sys_setrlimit) after the copy_from_user(). Arnd <>< -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
