[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RLIMIT_FSIZE and SIGXFSZ
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:40:22AM -0500, Mouse wrote:
> The documentation I have (which is consistent across 1.4T, 4.0.1, and
> 5.2) says that "[a] file I/O operation that would create a file larger
> that the process' soft limit will cause the write to fail and a signal
> SIGXFSZ to be generated". I looked at the code (for 4.0.1, that being
> what's on the machine I care about at the moment) and this appears to
> be accurate.
> It seems to me it would be more useful to do something like what
> RLIMIT_CPU does, and generate SIGXFSZ for such operations, but fail
> them only when the size exceeds the hard limit. As it stands, the hard
> limit is useful only as a value the soft limit can't be raised above.
> ("More useful" to me, at any rate.)
So I think the CPU limit signalling is treated as a special case
because it's pretty useless to deliver a signal whose handler you
can't execute because you're past the CPU limit. Otherwise (all other
limits) you get denied once you reach the soft limit, and I think
that's the way things are intended to work.
I think what you want is an additional signaling threshold that can be
manipulated separately from the limit.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |