From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 12 19:52:14 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6771065674;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:52:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (ZIM.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.101])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43558FC13;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:52:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m3CJtAc6036329;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:55:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from das@localhost)
	by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m3CJtA59036328;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:55:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:55:05 -0400
From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20080412195505.GA36208@zim.MIT.EDU>
Mail-Followup-To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.ORG>, mezz7@cox.net, imp@FreeBSD.ORG,
	current@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <1208027381.1327.31.camel@localhost>
	<1208028217.82222.32.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1208028217.82222.32.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
Cc: mezz7@cox.net, imp@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG,
	Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: mlock(2), unprivileged users, and RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:52:14 -0000

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 15:09 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Recently we've been having a discussion on the GNOME list about fixing
> > the seahorse breakage introduced with the latest GNOME 2.22, rooted in
> > the fact that FreeBSD's mlock(2) implementation is only usable if you
> > have superuser privileges. Due to bugs in seahorse, the lack of mlock(2)
> > causes many seahorse applications to die. I've posted a suggested patch
> > to 
[...]
> > As a third idea, we could leave the per-process limit (to abide by
> > historical documentation), but also add a sysctl that enforces a
> > system-wide "max mlock pages" which can be tested by the mlock(2)
> > syscall, refusing to mlock(2) more memory if the limit is hit.
> 
> I think this already exists in -CURRENT: vm.max_wired ("System-wide
> limit to wired page count").  This is tested by mlock(2) in addition to
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.

First of all, many other operating systems such as Solaris also
restrict mlock(2) to the superuser, so this is a bug in seahorse.

That said, it seems like allowing ordinary users to mlock(2) small
amounts of memory (e.g., vm_page_max_wired / 4 across all
non-superuser processes by default) would fix your problem and be
easy to implement.  Of course, per-user or per-process limits
would be more flexible, but how many people really have lots of
users who are trying to abuse the system?