On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:24:36AM +0200, Daniel Kraft wrote:
> Well. So that was kind of a brown-paper-bag bugreport.
> I had been certain that I had checked the hard limits for the first
> report, but I can't reproduce any problem now either, even with the
> old kernel. I'm sorry.
It's a commo
Well. So that was kind of a brown-paper-bag bugreport.
I had been certain that I had checked the hard limits for the first
report, but I can't reproduce any problem now either, even with the
old kernel. I'm sorry.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
Actually, the line I already posted was the whole non-comment content
of my /etc/security/limits.conf.
I'm logging in to the machine where I noticed the problem via ssh, so
I guess this determines the PAM service used.
I switched to a 2.6.29 kernel, but the problem persists.
I also reproduced th
tags 524999 moreinfo unreproducible
thanks
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 02:08:15PM +0200, Daniel Kraft wrote:
> I have a manually changed setting for memlock in /etc/security/limits.conf:
> myselfhardmemlock 10
> After upgrading to 1.0.1-9 (maybe already with 1.0.1-7, tho
Package: libpam-modules
Version: 1.0.1-9
I have a manually changed setting for memlock in /etc/security/limits.conf:
myselfhardmemlock 10
After upgrading to 1.0.1-9 (maybe already with 1.0.1-7, though I
didn't notice) this setting was ignored and the default of 64K us
5 matches
Mail list logo
