On 4 September 2018 at 23:02, Max Filippov <jcmvb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> I think the issue here is not related to 32-on-64 but to the fact >> that we just pass through the memory rlimits. What we should ideally >> be doing is tracking the actual guest memory allocations sufficiently >> that we can then apply the rlimits at the QEMU level, so that guest >> allocations that breach limits can be failed, without ever causing >> QEMU's own alloactions to fail. > > In a sense we do it by limiting 32-bit guest to 32 or less bits of the address > space, that's why it should be rather safe to just ignore setrlimit calls in > 32-on-64 case.
I'm not sure why you think that we should treat 32-on-64 differently. You could make a case for always ignoring setrlimit calls: if we ever hit the limit it's as likely to be by failing a QEMU internal allocation as a guest one, so not to imposing the limit at all would avoid QEMU failing then. But that would apply in both the 32-on-64 and also 32-on-32 and 64-on-64 cases too. thanks -- PMM
