From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-33472-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 2378 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2014 08:32:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 33472
Received: (qmail 15637 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2014 08:32:33 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
	SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-b7f156d0000063c7-7f-543f804258c8
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:22:26 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Cc: 765410@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#765410: ulimit broken as root if it fails once [origin:
 goswin-v-b@web.de]
Message-id: <20141016092226.01b96c87@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <141015194913.ZM13190@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <20141015223329.GV5405@sym.noone.org>
 <141015194913.ZM13190@torch.brasslantern.com>
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xa7pODfYhBheOi1mcX/OCzeJg80Mm
	ByaPC1snsXisOviBKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj+rFTzAUvmSsurutkbmDsY+5i5OCQEDCR
	2HDcpouRE8gUk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAUkaJ3vm3mCCcfiaJ/482s4BUsQioSlxYNY8JxGYTMJSY
	umk2I4gtIiAucXbtebAaZgEpia6J95lBbGGBWIn1PV1sIDavgL3Ez6ftYDWcAlYSe9fvYgex
	hQQSJW5sPgkW5xfQl7j69xMTxEX2EjOvnGGE6BWU+DH5HtR8LYnN25pYIWx5ic1r3jJPYBSc
	haRsFpKyWUjKFjAyr2IUTS1NLihOSs811CtOzC0uzUvXS87P3cQICdcvOxgXH7M6xCjAwajE
	w6sRbB8ixJpYVlyZe4hRgoNZSYS3uRAoxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgbHgotXGw72b
	RBryt7CI5CR5Jd7+e1HYuNs66XjZCguOGrX5/odzXoTMzo36FZW1RMgt9q3HJocPbavqmPe6
	vUpuv37S9O8xnVADhpddkdtvOxi9PL0i61LaR9d1qo//PS4pjuzPDZ9wWf0hww/jlf5qxbqW
	adKLj+vN49/C1POAS/Kj+OMPYUosxRmJhlrMRcWJAPTN5B41AgAA

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:49:13 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> This could also be fixed by having bin_ulimit read back the actual limit
> after a failure to set the hard limit and store that instead of keeping
> the "desired" hard limit around and trying to change it again.

I think that would be preferable --- I noted after the last ulimit query
(zsh-workers/33363, about a different implementation oddity) that this
looked potentially confusing.

pws