Hi Marian,
Note: The limits will soon be increased to (nearly) ULONG_MAX.
I.e.: If you propose the patch because you are running into issues with
a too small SEMMAX after an unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC), then this will be
fixed soon.
On 05/04/2014 01:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:48 +0300, Marian Marinov wrote:
When we are creating new IPC namespace that should be cloned from the current namespace it is a good idea to copy the
values of the current shmmax and shmall to the new namespace.
The idea sounds reasonable:
If an admin has reduced the limits, then the reduction should also apply
after a unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC).
But:
Your patch doesn't use the current shmmax, it uses the shmmax from
init_ipc_ns.
Would it be possible to use the current values?
Why is this a good idea?
This would break userspace that relies on the current behavior.
Furthermore we've recently changed the default value of both these
limits to be as large as you can get, thus deprecating them. I don't
like the idea of this being replaced by namespaces.
Davidlohr: We are not deprecating them, we make the default huge.
The limits should stay as usable as they were.
With regards to breaking user space, I must think about it a bit more.
Right now, each new namespace starts with SEMMAX=32MB, i.e. an often
unusable default.
--
Manfred
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
