On Sun, 13 May 2001, Andrew Morgan wrote:
> Off hand, it looks like you've hit this:
>
> for(i = 0; i < RLIM_NLIMITS; i++)
> retval |= getrlimit(i, &pl->limits[i].limit);
>
> Now, if you compiled this module with the headers for 2.4, but used it
> with a 2.2 kernel where RLIM_NLIMITS might not be the same, I could see
> that this might fail. Could you check that this is so?
Yes, RLIM_NLIMITS is 11 in 2.4 but only 10 in 2.2.
Nevertheless, getrlimit() should return EINVAL iff its first argument is
incorrect (i.e. has a value not supported by the running kernel). This
means the following code could solve the problem:
char supported[RLIM_NLIMITS];
...
for (i = 0; i < RLIM_NLIMITS; ++i) {
int r = getrlimit(i, ...);
supported[i] = 1;
if (r == -1 && errno == EINVAL) {
supported[i] = 0;
r = 0;
}
retval |= r;
}
...
for (i = 0; i < RLIM_NLIMITS; ++i) {
if (!supported[i])
continue;
...
... = setrlimit(i, ...);
...
}
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
