Quoting Oren Laadan ([email protected]):
> This patch adds checkpoint and restart of rlimit information
> that is part of shared signal_struct.
...
> static int restore_signal(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx)
> {
> struct ckpt_hdr_signal *h;
> + struct rlimit rlim;
> + int i, ret;
>
> h = ckpt_read_obj_type(ctx, sizeof(*h), CKPT_HDR_SIGNAL);
> if (IS_ERR(h))
> return PTR_ERR(h);
>
> - /* fill in later */
> -
> + /* rlimit */
> + for (i = 0; i < RLIM_NLIMITS; i++) {
> + rlim.rlim_cur = h->rlim[i].rlim_cur;
> + rlim.rlim_max = h->rlim[i].rlim_max;
> + ret = do_setrlimit(i, &rlim);
...
> +int do_setrlimit(unsigned int resource, struct rlimit *new_rlim)
> {
> - struct rlimit new_rlim, *old_rlim;
> + struct rlimit *old_rlim;
> int retval;
>
> - if (resource >= RLIM_NLIMITS)
> - return -EINVAL;
> - if (copy_from_user(&new_rlim, rlim, sizeof(*rlim)))
> - return -EFAULT;
> - if (new_rlim.rlim_cur > new_rlim.rlim_max)
> - return -EINVAL;
> old_rlim = current->signal->rlim + resource;
> - if ((new_rlim.rlim_max > old_rlim->rlim_max) &&
> + if ((new_rlim->rlim_max > old_rlim->rlim_max) &&
> !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> return -EPERM;
> - if (resource == RLIMIT_NOFILE && new_rlim.rlim_max > sysctl_nr_open)
> + if (resource == RLIMIT_NOFILE && new_rlim->rlim_max > sysctl_nr_open)
> return -EPERM;
>
> - retval = security_task_setrlimit(resource, &new_rlim);
> + retval = security_task_setrlimit(resource, new_rlim);
> if (retval)
> return retval;
>
> - if (resource == RLIMIT_CPU && new_rlim.rlim_cur == 0) {
> + if (resource == RLIMIT_CPU && new_rlim->rlim_cur == 0) {
> /*
> * The caller is asking for an immediate RLIMIT_CPU
> * expiry. But we use the zero value to mean "it was
> * never set". So let's cheat and make it one second
> * instead
> */
> - new_rlim.rlim_cur = 1;
> + new_rlim->rlim_cur = 1;
> }
>
> task_lock(current->group_leader);
> - *old_rlim = new_rlim;
> + *old_rlim = *new_rlim;
> task_unlock(current->group_leader);
>
> if (resource != RLIMIT_CPU)
> @@ -1189,14 +1183,27 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(setrlimit, unsigned int, resource,
> struct rlimit __user *, rlim)
> * very long-standing error, and fixing it now risks breakage of
> * applications, so we live with it
> */
> - if (new_rlim.rlim_cur == RLIM_INFINITY)
> + if (new_rlim->rlim_cur == RLIM_INFINITY)
> goto out;
>
> - update_rlimit_cpu(new_rlim.rlim_cur);
> + update_rlimit_cpu(new_rlim->rlim_cur);
> out:
> return 0;
> }
>
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(setrlimit, unsigned int, resource, struct rlimit __user *,
> rlim)
> +{
> + struct rlimit new_rlim;
> +
> + if (resource >= RLIM_NLIMITS)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (copy_from_user(&new_rlim, rlim, sizeof(*rlim)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + if (new_rlim.rlim_cur > new_rlim.rlim_max)
> + return -EINVAL;
Should the above check go into do_setrlimit()? No sense trusting
the data sent to sys_checkpoint() any more than the data sent to
sys_setrlimit().
> + return do_setrlimit(resource, &new_rlim);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * It would make sense to put struct rusage in the task_struct,
> * except that would make the task_struct be *really big*. After
> --
> 1.6.0.4
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
