On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 20:48 +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:45 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The documentation for ignore_rlimit_data says that it will print a warning > > at first misuse. Yet it doesn't seem to do that. Fix the code to print > > the warning even when we allow the process to continue. > > Ack. But I think this was a misprint in docs. > Anyway, this knob is a kludge so we might warn once even if it is set. Right. I think we definitely should. Otherwise, once set, there's no real path to ever being able to *unset* it. Nothing well ever get fixed. > So, somebody still have problems with this change? > I remember concerns about that "warn_once" isn't enough to detect > what's going wrong. > And probably we should invent "warn_sometimes". That was covered by "should probably also do what Linus suggested…": > > --- > > We should probably also do what Linus suggested in > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/16/585
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
