Le 22 mars 2013 à 11:55, Wietse Venema a écrit : > [...] > > You are mistaken. First, since rlim_max==RLIM_INFINITY the limit is > not enforced (unless Apple totally screwed up the setrlimit() API).
Hmmm... who knows? They are very inventive, sometimes... ;-) > Second, rlim_cur was 256 because YOUR patch changed it. No no: when entering open_limit(), rlim_cur has a default value of 256. My quick patch just raised that to OPEN_MAX indirectly, by bringing the value of parameter limit back to an "allowable" value (instead of INT_MAX). Now, because of the test against RLIM_INFINITY, we don't touch rlim_cur anymore, which thus remains at 256. > Third, you > could test your concern by setting a really low rlim_cur and seeing > if it is enforced while rlim_max==RLIM_INFINITY. I'll probably try that one. What limit would you chose, so as to be sure to encounter the problem if any? Axel
