Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 09:48:27AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > We have a limit on the number of FDs a process can have open for a reason.
> > Well, for many reasons.
> 
> And the typical limit is too low. (I've seen people clamp it to 1024
> for some reason.)

1024 is the soft limit.  4096 is the default hard limit.  You can always
ask root to set your hard limit higher if that's what you need.

> A file descriptor is just a handle to a kernel
> resource. All kernel resources held on behalf of applications need
> *some* kind of management interface. File descriptors provide a
> consistent and uniform instance of such a management interface. Unless
> there's a very good reason, nobody should be using non-FD handles for
> kernel resource management. A low default FD table size limit is not
> an example of one of these good reasons, not when we can raise FD
> table size limit. In general, the software projects should not have to
> put up with ugly workarounds for limitations they impose on
> themselves.

I'm not really sure why you decided to go off on this rant.  My point to
Pavel was that there's no way a single process can tie up all of the PIDs.
Unless root decided to let them shoot everybody else in the system in
the foot.