From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D46C433EF for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9515060F38 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 9515060F38 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.205585.360934 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZreh-0001K1-OR; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:35 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 205585.360934; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZreh-0001Ju-LS; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:35 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 205585; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:34 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZreg-0001Jo-H8 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:34 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZreg-0001kF-EH for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:34 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZreg-0007Qq-DD for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:31:34 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1mZrec-0000bi-Kx; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:31:30 +0100 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=LCEE4Kq9JCbxBO61BV8+TG13UiFDXQBp/HiMEDmUvZw=; b=smYtYZxawfwkDTxtO+y4sAwhiW UZzEMAJhy6Xg4fljWAUFudVk/9js3Qr4lHfnxNwlyMdU/n27kuyKs67yFxq/luyC4aJYxg3qEkSEP qXSLXADOWzaugEwz4B7KJJbfePUIkOvu0ltfEbFjrfXV3CCMolWGQNeEOXp2CdECN1o8=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <24932.1138.187067.478819@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:31:30 +0100 To: Juergen Gross Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Wei Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tools/xenstore: set open file descriptor limit for xenstored In-Reply-To: <3c9bfe5d-c471-c771-d6a7-a15cca466cb6@suse.com> References: <20210928091517.9761-1-jgross@suse.com> <20210928091517.9761-3-jgross@suse.com> <24915.1121.8356.288414@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <0bd81ff3-a7ac-4000-4c0c-d7127b1c1985@suse.com> <24915.13356.139165.259646@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <3c9bfe5d-c471-c771-d6a7-a15cca466cb6@suse.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tools/xenstore: set open file descriptor limit for xenstored"): > On 28.09.21 17:26, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tools/xenstore: set open file descriptor limit for xenstored"): > >> Hmm, maybe I should just use: > >> > >> prlimit --nofile=$XENSTORED_MAX_OPEN_FDS \ > >> $XENSTORED --pid-file @XEN_RUN_DIR@/xenstored.pid $XENSTORED_ARGS > > > > I guess that would probably work (although it involves another > > exec) but I don't understand what's wrong with ulimit, which is a > > shell builtin. > > My main concern with ulimit is that this would set the open file limit > for _all_ children of the script. I don't think right now this is a real > problem, but it feels wrong to me (systemd-notify ought to be fine, but > you never know ...). Oh, I see. Yes, that is a good point. So, I think your suggest (quoted above) is good. Thanks, Ian.