https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 --- Comment #24 from Honggang LI <honli@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #23) > > > 30-libvma-limits.conf: > > > > # Default limits that are needed for proper work of libvma > > > > # Read more about this topic in the VMA's User Manual > > > > * - memlock unlimited > > > > * soft memlock unlimited > > > > * hard memlock unlimited > > > > > > Does having the package installed give every user on the system the > > > permission to mlock unlimited amounts of RAM? Is that really necessary? > > > Could it be at least limited to a user group? > > > > There is such recommendation at > > https://docs.mellanox.com/display/VMAv902/VMA+Installation+Options that > > forces to > > https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma/wiki/VMA-over-RHEL-7.x-with-inbox- > > driver#4-common-configurations > > Thanks for the pointer, but it does not answer the question why the memlock > resource limit has to be lifted for all users by default. Have other options > been considered? Could it be limited to a user group? i.e.: > @libvmauser - memlock unlimited In real HPC production environment, we are always to lifted the resource for all users. For example, see "13.5.3. Relaxing memlock restrictions for users" https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/networking_guide/sec-configuring_the_base_rdma_subsystem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
