On 2011/11/03 19:21, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > After little discussion, nobody seemed to be interested in it, and > > nobody merged it. I reposted it today, not knowing somebody else had > > come up with a similar idea meanwhile. > > I don't really see a meaningful use case for this. Why should millions of > users have this stuff in their kernel. What's the general purpose use > case we should all be excited about ? Putting a reasonable limit on jobs that are expected to run only for a limited amount of time, with a limited amount of total resources. For example: CGI, cron jobs, backup, munin plugins, virus scanners and other email filters, procmail, ... - when the job is done, the group can be deleted, and new instances will run in a new group. With just RLIMIT_NPROC or task_counter, you can limit the total number of processes, but it will not stop a fork bomb - it will only slow it down. The fork bomb will still bounce between 1 and the limit, and consume lots of resources for forking and exiting. (Glauber: the above should answer your last email, too) Similar existing feature: RLIMIT_CPU. Millions of users have it in their kernels, but nobody uses it nowadays. And it's not even optional. Btw. I have no problem with maintaining this patch (and a whole bunch of others) in my proprietary git repository at work forever. They're very useful for my employer. I'm just trying to be a good citizen by sharing them. Max _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
