I guess the answer is "no." :) This is Ubuntu 16.04. On CentOS7.3, pam_limits is part of systemd-user through system-auth
Here is /etc/pam.d/systemd-user from my Ubuntu system: # This file is part of systemd. # # Used by systemd --user instances. @include common-account session required pam_selinux.so close session required pam_selinux.so nottys open @include common-session-noninteractive session optional pam_systemd.so So on RHEL systems, it doesn't matter that is works because user instances are officially not included and it just doesn't work on Ubuntu because pam_limits is not used by systemd-user. I find it odd that two major distros differ in this behavior. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mo, 20.11.17 09:20, Jeff Solomon ([email protected]) wrote: > > > Lennart, > > > > Your explanation sounds great but it's just not what I'm seeing. > > > > My [email protected] has "PAMName=systemd-user" in the [Service] section. > > > > I have setup limits for the user in /etc/security/limits.d/foo.conf. > > > > I have no other limit overrides in any other systemd file. > > > > Whether I reboot or "systemctl restart user@<uid>" I see the same thing. > > That is, the limits set through pam_limits are not respected. > > > > I consistently see that if I login as that user, then "ulimit -a" shows > the > > values I expect from pam_limits while "cat /proc/<pid>/limits" for the > user > > instance process or its children do not. > > Is pam_limits even enabled for the "systemd-user" PAM fragment on your > distro? > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
