Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:56:35AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Also when setting ns->ucount_max[] in create_user_ns because one value
>> is signed and the other is unsigned. Care should be taken so that
>> rlimit_infinity is translated into the largest positive value the
>> type can hold.
>
> You mean like that ?
>
> ns->ucount_max[UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC] = rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC) <= LONG_MAX ?
> rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC) : LONG_MAX;
> ns->ucount_max[UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE] = rlimit(RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE) <= LONG_MAX ?
> rlimit(RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE) : LONG_MAX;
> ns->ucount_max[UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING] = rlimit(RLIMIT_SIGPENDING) <= LONG_MAX ?
> rlimit(RLIMIT_SIGPENDING) : LONG_MAX;
> ns->ucount_max[UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK] = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) <= LONG_MAX ?
> rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) : LONG_MAX;
Yes.
I only got as far as:
if (rlimit(RLIMI_NNN) == RLIM_INFINITY) {
ns->ucount_max[UCOUNT_LIMIT_NNN] = LONG_MAX;
} else {
ns->ucount_max[UCOUNT_LMIT_NNN] = rlmit(RLIMIT_NNN);
}
But forcing everything about LONG_MAX to LONG_MAX actually looks better
in practice. Especially as that is effectively RLIMIT_INFINITY anyway.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
