On 4 September 2018 at 23:26, Max Filippov <jcmvb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> On 4 September 2018 at 23:02, Max Filippov <jcmvb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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. > > That's what I did initially, but it feels somewhat unsafe in 64-on-64 case. > My expectation is that limits set by 64-bit guest should be somewhat > suitable for the 64-bit host, is it wrong? It doesn't matter what the limit the guest sets is -- the problem is that if we hit it then chances are good it'll cause a QEMU allocation to fail and then we'll deadlock. The limit might be entirely reasonable for the guest program (which presumably has a plan for handling the failure) but QEMU itself can't cope with hitting the limit. https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1163034 is the bug I mentioned in my earlier email, by the way. thanks -- PMM
