> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:42:38AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: >> Does it make sense for the PIDs controller to allow a user to set a >> limit of 0? Since we don't cancel attaches, a limit of 0 doesn't >> affect anything (nothing stops attaches, and you need to have a >> process in the PIDs cgroup in order for fork()s to be affected by the >> limit). So I think that attempting to set pid.limit to 0 should return >> an -EINVAL. > > I don't know. Why does it matter? Well, it might be confusing that a limit of `0` is not different from a limit of `1`. Especially since someone might think that a limit of `0` means "no processes AT ALL", which is wrong. Although, I guess they should've just RTFM'd in that case. -- Aleksa Sarai (cyphar) www.cyphar.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
