On 05/16/2018 05:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:00 PM Linus Torvalds < > torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:45 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Do we care at all that userspace has been wanting a safe interface for >>> setproctitle() for a long time? Particularly one without a 16-byte > limit. >>> Might we solve two problems at once? > >> Note that we'll inevitably always have *some* limit, so I doubt we'll ever >> get over that. > >> And we actually do have a way to fill comm. Writing to /proc/<pid>/comm >> already does exactly that. It obviously will truncate to whatever the >> current limit is, but you can write anything you want. > > Or you can use prctl(PR_SET_NAME, ...). We are discussing increasing the size of comm[]. Should we discuss it in the broader context of what kworkers need, *and* what userspaces server processes might also use? Today applications shuffle data around in arg/env pages to alter argv[0], but this is unreliable at best if your pages are already filled with arguments and environment variables. How big is too big for a new extended size comm[]? If people think this is the wrong venue to raise the point, I'm happy to drop it, but I figured I should say something given that userspace wants something similar. -- Cheers, Carlos. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
