Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:54:48 +0200 From: Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org> To: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpn@neutralgood.org>, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Avoiding LibreOffice DOS Message-ID: <b5c855b4-71b5-557a-d82a-339033cb8c53@hedeland.org> In-Reply-To: <20191017144207.GC63640@neutralgood.org> References: <eee23781-9264-3de5-1a27-3879e731a5fc@netfence.it> <be6c4b7f-0a91-8795-3218-65e933c6649d@gmail.com> <62d45c64-ac95-43a7-5e39-9a94d26d323c@netfence.it> <20191017144207.GC63640@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2019-10-17 16:42, Kevin P. Neal wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:05:32PM +0200, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > >> If I issue "ulimit -v 2097152" and "ulimit -a" again, I still see the >> same values as above. >> So either "ulimit -v 2097152" did nothing or I'm not understanding it >> correctly... > > It's a shell builtin, so it should be documented in the man page for > the shell you are using. Which one is that? I just tried it with bash > 5.0.11 and the output of ulimit -a looked correct. The /bin/sh that > comes with FreeBSD 11.3 seems correct as well. Oh, but 11.3's csh > didn't change the limit. Are you using stock csh by any chance? The [t]csh builtin corresponding to [ba]sh's 'ulimit' is called 'limit': pluto 1> which ulimit /usr/bin/ulimit pluto 2> which limit limit: shell built-in command. pluto 3> limit cputime unlimited filesize unlimited datasize 33554432 kbytes stacksize 524288 kbytes coredumpsize unlimited memoryuse unlimited vmemoryuse unlimited descriptors 234324 pseudoterminaunlimited kqueues unlimited memorylocked 64 kbytes maxproc 12171 sbsize unlimited swapsize unlimited A bit more verbose usage than 'ulimit', but has worked fine in all FreeBSD versions where I've tried it. /usr/bin/ulimit obviously can't work for changing the limits, why it (and /usr/bin/cd, /usr/bin/umask, and a bunch of others like it) exists at all I'll leave for someone else to explain (I think it's some POSIX requirement). >> Once I solve the above, should I use -m instead of -v (or the >> corresponding memoryuse insetead of vmemoryuse in /etc/login.conf)? > > No, I'd stick with "-v". I think -d may also be worth a try... --Per Hedeland
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b5c855b4-71b5-557a-d82a-339033cb8c53>