From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Xu Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:11:59 +0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/kill11: add a check between hard limit and MIN_RLIMIT_CORE In-Reply-To: <22de5707-18fb-f552-caed-aff4e9922c6d@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1581486286-13615-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1892366945.7197852.1581514327491.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <71c807c2-b77b-5081-76f8-335aaf1cbe3a@cn.fujitsu.com> <702486188.7490041.1581582953077.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <22de5707-18fb-f552-caed-aff4e9922c6d@cn.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <00adce02-dc66-b766-bf27-7d45922d7a94@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it on 2020/02/13 16:41, Yang Xu wrote: > > > on 2020/02/13 16:35, Jan Stancek wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> This looks OK, but could we also raise the limit when possible? >>>> >>> Of course. Your way is more wise. >>> But I also want to change this size of MIN_RLIMIT_CORE. >>> ? From ulimit manpage, I know in posix mode "-c" used 512-byte block. I >>> doubt whether we can change MIN_RLIMIT_CORE(512 *1024), so this case >>> can also pass in unbuntu(default environment). >>> What do you think about this? >> >> I don't see problem with that, we only check for correct signal. >> Though it probably should be separate patch. Can you re-post >> both as 2 patch series? Hi Jan Since abort01 has the same issue, I will send a patch series as you advise, and then cleanup kill11 when I have free time. Best Regargd Yang Xu > Hi Jan > ?I perfer to cleanup this case to use new API and also include this two > points. > > Best Regard > Yang Xu >> >> >> > > >