From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@googlemail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, aaw <aaw@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
carlos@codesourcery.com, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
drepper@redhat.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com,
Geoff Clare <gwc@opengroup.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:39:18 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802291032370.17889@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47C84C6C.2000201@gmail.com>
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> My reading of POSIX.1 (and POSIX doesn't seem very explicit on this point), is
> that the limits on argv+environ and on stack are decoupled, since POSIX
> specifies RLIMIT_STACK and sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) and doesn't specify any
> relationship between the two.
I agree. And clearly there _are_ relationships and always have been, but
equally clearly they simply haven't been a big issue in practice, and
nobody really cares.
Usually, _SC_ARG_MAX is just so much smaller than RLIMIT_STACK that it
makes no possible difference. Which I would actually argue we should just
continue with: just keep _SC_ARG_MAX a smallish, irrelevant constant.
We still have to have the compile-time ARG_MAX constant (as in *real*
constant - a #define) anyway, for traditional programs, and you might as
well make sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) always just match ARG_MAX.
It's not like there is likely a single user of _SC_ARG_MAX that cares.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-29 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-27 13:37 [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-29 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 16:58 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-02-29 17:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 17:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-29 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 17:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-29 18:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 19:01 ` Ollie Wild
2008-02-29 19:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
2008-02-29 19:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 20:03 ` Ollie Wild
2008-03-04 20:07 ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-29 17:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-29 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-29 18:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 18:18 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-02-29 18:39 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-02-29 19:49 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-02-29 20:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 20:43 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-02-29 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-29 21:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-03-01 14:21 ` Carlos O'Donell
2008-03-01 8:42 ` Geoff Clare
2008-02-29 18:40 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.1.00.0802291032370.17889@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aaw@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=carlos@codesourcery.com \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=gwc@opengroup.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael.kerrisk@googlemail.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).