From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LPInB-0002rt-Ga for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:45:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2FADE03D3; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homeless.linbsd.net (homeless.linbsd.net [64.127.112.66]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDADEE03D3 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (dsl092-011-131.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.11.131]) by homeless.linbsd.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3C2A358814 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:45:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] resource overstep RLIMIT_CORE From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200901201117.19258.janklodvan@gmail.com> References: <20090120104920.2B983E0377@pigeon.gentoo.org> <200901201117.19258.janklodvan@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:45:25 -0800 Message-Id: <1232466326.7039.7.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 10b1b05d-f774-411d-adc9-4bcc4ebf21ff X-Archives-Hash: 3caa2dedb0bca4b66d79a87a27fac862 On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 11:17 +0000, Jan Klod wrote: > On Tuesday 20 January 2009 10:49:24 Manuel Leithner wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:40:33 +0100, Jan Klod wrote: > > > Hi list, > > > > > > could someone explain the meaning and possible causes (if possible) of > > > this message: "denied resource overstep by requesting 4096 for > > > RLIMIT_CORE against limit 0? > > > > One of your processes crashed and tried to dump its core, but since the > > RLIMIT_CORE is set to 0 (i. e. no core dumps are to be created), it can't > > do so. > > Ah, so it is just a secondary problem. Its ssmtp crashing. First it makes a > segfault, then receives signal 11 by grsec, then overstep. A segfault is signal 11. It's not two events but one. And grsec is not sending the signal in anyway but rather just logging that it happened. > Anyone here using > it with grsec? Lots of people.