Hello i thought i had sent this here already to bts. Turn out i missed it. So here it goes.
Thilo Six schrieb/wrote: > > just a short addition, see below > >>>> May i ask then what is a real world use case for the unlimit builtin then? >>>> (Just to make it clear, i am not ironic here, just interested trying to >>>> understand it.) >>> >>> You might as well ask what's the purpose of having separate soft and >>> hard limits. >>> >>> The hard limit is the value that even malicious or compromised user accounts >>> may not exceed. >>> >>> I do not know what's the historical reason for having a separate soft >>> limit. However, I can imagine a multiuser system with a social >>> expectation that if you run into the soft limit you reschedule your >>> resource-heavy job to off-peak hours. Or on a desktop system, you might >>> selectively increase the limit for specific resource-hungry >>> applications, giving each application a limit of, say, 5% above its >>> normal usage. >> >> Now we are back were this bug started. >> I do not argue soft vs. hard limit or their existence at all. They are >> useful. >> I do not even argue that temporarily lifting current limits upwards is >> useful. >> >> I do argue (and that is what has caused this bug) that setting a limit that >> far >> beyond anything capable on this current system that it is not even technical >> able to handle that size of such a limit is useful. >> And that is just what unlimit does (at least that is what i gather from this >> bugs history). >> >> After unlimit has been run the max input size is set to a that large integer >> that i would need to go and buy a rather professional SAN System to back that >> setting up with actually s.th. capable for it. >> And just that is what i simply do not understand, as that behaviour of >> unlimit >> is the opposite of being useful in real world. I just verified upstream git also has this: ,----[ ./StartupFiles/zshrc ]-------- # Use hard limits, except for a smaller stack and no core dumps unlimit `----------------------------------------------------------------------- This very example has lead me to the impression that setting this would actually be ok. Which turned out not. So i suggest to at least comment that out and add a pointer to this discussion here. Maybe this will prevent some other naive user from falling into the same pit as happend to me. >> Now if unlimit would instead evaluate the maximum physical possible size for >> that limit and activate that, i would say nice. >> As in your example that would be as pushing the super-turbo-charger button >> for >> current session. And actually that is what i had expected when using it. >> >> question: >> Something i was not be able to 100% verify up to now, but i guess from what i >> read so far that input size on shell prompt relates to stack size in terms of >> rlimit? >> >> After all if nothing else this bug has served my self for learning quite a >> bit >> so far. At least i do count that as "worth it". >> >> Again thanks for your input. It is appreciated. >> >> >> >> kind regards, >> >> Thilo >> >
