On 05/02/2018 11:06 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>> and or users that may or may not exist. If you can find something that >>> will care sure. We need to avoid breaking userspace and causing >>> regressions. However as this stands it looks you are making maintenance >>> of the kernel more difficult to avoid having to look to see if there are >>> monsters under the bed. >> I shall admit that it can be hard to find applications that will >> explicitly need that as we usually don't have access to the applications >> that the customers have. It is more a correctness issue where the >> existing code is kind of lying about what can actually be supported. I >> just want to make the users more aware of what the right limits are. > You presume the kernel is lying to applications. I admit the kernel > can lie to applications. I don't see any evidence that the kernel is > actually doing so. So far (to me) it looks like a large number of sysv > shared memory segments is not particulalry common. > > So I would not be at all surprised if no regressions would be generated > if you simply deny setting the value past the maximum. Maybe you are right. I will update the patchset to fail the update if the range is exceeded since I had added option of extending the limit if the users choose to do so. Cheers, Longman
