YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> we use that argument to pass the
>> process requesting the rlimit change
> 
> can it be different from curproc?

no. that's what the first version of the fix, as you can see.

however, keep in mind that the context may be forwarded to a userland
daemon or a different machine on the network for decision, so I don't
think we can rely on curproc/curlwp here...

so I'd suggest adding a KASSERT maybe, but that's it.

-e.