ulimit differences between zsh and bash on Linux

ulimit differences between zsh and bash on Linux

[Daniel Qarras]

Hi,

on a Linux system I have set following limits (only) on
/etc/security/limits.conf:

*               soft    core            0
*               hard    core            32768

When I use bash I get this:

$ ulimit -Hc
32768

But with zsh CVS I get this:

$ ulimit -Hc
65536

Both shells should measure core limit as blocks so is there a bug in
zsh or am I missing something?

Thanks.





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html
 

Re: ulimit differences between zsh and bash on Linux

[Peter Stephenson]

Daniel Qarras wrote:
> on a Linux system I have set following limits (only) on
> /etc/security/limits.conf:
> 
> *               soft    core            0
> *               hard    core            32768
> 
> When I use bash I get this:
> 
> $ ulimit -Hc
> 32768
> 
> But with zsh CVS I get this:
> 
> $ ulimit -Hc
> 65536
> 
> Both shells should measure core limit as blocks so is there a bug in
> zsh or am I missing something?

I get the same results.  zsh is definitely using 512, the traditional
block size, which as far as I know is correct.  Is bash?  If it were
using 1024 that would explain the difference.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road
Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070

Re: ulimit differences between zsh and bash on Linux

[Daniel Qarras]

Hi!

> > *               soft    core            0
> > *               hard    core            32768
> > 
> > When I use bash I get this:
> > 
> > $ ulimit -Hc
> > 32768
> > 
> > But with zsh CVS I get this:
> > 
> > $ ulimit -Hc
> > 65536
> 
> I get the same results.  zsh is definitely using 512, the traditional
> block size, which as far as I know is correct.  Is bash?  If it were
> using 1024 that would explain the difference.

Yep, you guessed right. http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-3.2.tar.gz has
the following in bash-3.2/builtins/ulimit.def:

static RESOURCE_LIMITS limits[] = {
#ifdef RLIMIT_CORE
  { 'c',        RLIMIT_CORE,  1024,     "core file size",      
"blocks" },
#endif

Should I report a bug against bash or has zsh to follow bash's example?
I quickly check standards at

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/setrlimit.html

and it says

RLIMIT_CORE
    This is the maximum size of a core file, in bytes, that may be
created by a process.

Thanks.




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7