*BSD News Article 12667


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!not-for-mail
From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.bugs
Subject: Re: VM problems w/unlimited memory? PATCHES
Date: 14 Mar 1993 14:42:09 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 13
Sender: sef@ftp.UU.NET
Message-ID: <1o0cc1INN1po@ftp.UU.NET>
References: <C3s2nz.9sz@unx.sas.com> <1nqtmjINNlns@ftp.uu.net> <1nratqINN4uk@ftp.UU.NET> <C3w6Jp.9Gx@sugar.neosoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

In article <C3w6Jp.9Gx@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Any reason to pick 2048 rather than just rejecting negative fds?

Yes:  it's unsigned in one of the routines.  Making it signed would help
catch this problem, but the system would still be crashable by doing:

	limit openfiles 2000000000
	bash

The "official" way it will be fixed in 4.4 is, apparantly, to check against
maxfiles; about the only way my patches differ from that, really, is that
mine allow maxfdescs to be configurable.