On 06/14/16 14:50, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/13, Topi Miettinen wrote: >> >> Track maximum number of pending signals, presented in /proc/self/limits. >> >> Signed-off-by: Topi Miettinen <[email protected]> >> --- >> kernel/signal.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c >> index 96e9bc4..c8fbccd 100644 >> --- a/kernel/signal.c >> +++ b/kernel/signal.c >> @@ -387,6 +387,8 @@ __sigqueue_alloc(int sig, struct task_struct *t, gfp_t >> flags, int override_rlimi >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&q->list); >> q->flags = 0; >> q->user = user; >> + /* XXX resource limits apply per task, not per user */ >> + bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, atomic_read(&user->sigpending)); > > Well, I have to admit that I too dislike the very idea of these changes... > > But this particular patch looks wrong in any case. I wasn't cc'ed on the > previous patches which add bump_rlimit(), but I have found > > "[RFC 05/18] limits: track and present RLIMIT_NOFILE actual max" > http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=146584742331072&w=2 >
I used git send-email --cc-cmd=scripts/get_maintainer.pl to generate the CC lists. Is there a better way? > and bump_rlimit() changes current->signal->rlim_curmax, while in this case > you need to bump t->signal->rlim_curmax. > > Oleg. > Yes, I also added task_bump_rlimit() which would be better choice here. -Topi
