I've been troubleshooting some more, and have found this is possible a
problem with SSH:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=116133
not invoking limits, although it seems this has been fixed in the
release I am using, this bug should be closed, have verified that using
"su" or enabling SSH to use "login" in the sshd_config file results in
ulimit -a giving the right behavior, sorry for the trouble.
Nasser Mohieddin Abukhdeir
Graduate Student (Materials Modeling Research Group)
McGill University - Department of Chemical Engineering
http://webpages.mcgill.ca/students/nabukh/web/
http://mmrg.chemeng.mcgill.ca/
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:49:27PM -0400, Nasser Mohieddin Abukhdeir wrote:
Package: libpam-modules
Version: 1.0.1-5+lenny1
Severity: important
Hello:
After reading through the original bug report and the one submitted
to Ubuntu (#327597), I think there is some issue, at least with trying
to change the memlock limits.
So, before touching anything:
nas...@rey2:~$ ulimit -l
32
nas...@rey2:~$ ulimit -H -l
32
Note that this machine is an LDAP client for authentication via
libpam-ldap. After adding these lines to an otherwise empty
/etc/security/limits.conf:
* hard memlock unlimited
* soft memlock unlimited
and double checking that in the file /etc/pam.d/sshd is uncommented:
# Set up user limits from /etc/security/limits.conf.
session required pam_limits.so
I believe this bug is fixed in libpam-modules 1.0.1-9 in squeeze.
Unfortunately it's non-trivial to install this package on lenny (rather,
it's non-trivial to roll it back after testing, since this introduces a
significant change to the config file handling), so I can't really advise
you to test this on your system unless you mean to stick with the squeeze
version of PAM afterwards.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
