Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Orcan Ogetbil
On 20 September 2016 at 03:00, Thomas Daede wrote: > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per user > is 64kiB, which less than what some applications need. > > In particular, Bitcoin Core uses mlock() to prevent private keys from > being swapped to disk. The total size of t

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 18:05, Björn Persson wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Oh, GNOME keyring still works mostly fine, it just fails to lock the > > memory to prevent it from being paged to disk. It only really matters > > if you're running some ultra-secure military/government s

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Björn Persson
Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Oh, GNOME keyring still works mostly fine, it just fails to lock the > memory to prevent it from being paged to disk. It only really matters > if you're running some ultra-secure military/government stuff, but it's > not how it was designed to work. Although I can't fin

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 13:29 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It also shouldn't be necessary to have to faff around with memory > limits to do ordinary operations like starting a VM or trying to use > GNOME keyring.  The 64K limit is obviously much too low. Oh, GNOME keyring still works mostly fi

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:27:25AM +0200, Joachim Backes wrote: > The command "ulimit -l ..." lets you control such a limit. See > command ulimit -a: I think everyone's well aware of that. That doesn't help when we were trying to run ppc64 qemu instances, since those were launched from libvirtd,

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-21 Thread Joachim Backes
On 09/21/16 08:31, Sylvia wrote: I think yes, that's the reason. Besides, I agree with Björn about setting a 1% of the total memory. The command "ulimit -l ..." lets you control such a limit. See command ulimit -a: core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited data seg size (kby

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Sylvia
I think yes, that's the reason.  Besides, I agree with Björn about setting a 1% of the total memory. Cheers,  Sylvia On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:40 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 00:00 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memo

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 00:00 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per > user > is 64kiB, which less than what some applications need. Could this be why memory locking in seahorse/gnome-keyring has been broken for years? _

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Björn Persson
Thomas Daede wrote: > The reason for the restriction is presumably an anti-DoS measure for > multi-user systems. It's not really clear where the 64kiB value came > from though - it seems like it could be much, much higher. How about 1% of the total system memory? That would be tens of megabytes p

Re: Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Sylvia
Hello! I think it's reasonable to raise the value, not sure how much, but definitely should be higher. Cheers, Sylvia On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 00:00 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > > For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per user > is 64kiB, which less than what some applica

Locked memory limits are too low

2016-09-20 Thread Thomas Daede
For Fedora Workstation, the current limit on mlock()ed memory per user is 64kiB, which less than what some applications need. In particular, Bitcoin Core uses mlock() to prevent private keys from being swapped to disk. The total size of the wallet keys can exceed 300kB. Audio is another use case