getrlimit.2: Mention unit used by RLIMIT_CORE and RLIMIT_FSIZE

It would have been obvious that these limits are in bytes, except that "ulimit -a" in at least bash, dash and zsh says that they're in blocks. This confused me, so I had to check the kernel source code.

My understanding is that they are indeed in bytes, so mention this information in the man page.

Signed-off-by Thiago Jung Bauermann <[email protected]>

---
 man2/getrlimit.2 | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

man2/getrlimit.2 +2 -2

index 84f04d695ea2..f2c5297526d7 100644
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ This is the maximum size of a
 .I core
 file (see
 .BR core (5))
-that the process may dump.
+in bytes that the process may dump.
 When 0 no core dump files are created.
 When nonzero, larger dumps are truncated to this size.
 .TP

@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ which fail with the error
 upon encountering the soft limit of this resource.
 .TP
 .B RLIMIT_FSIZE
-This is the maximum size of files that the process may create.
+This is the maximum size in bytes of files that the process may create.
 Attempts to extend a file beyond this limit result in delivery of a
 .B SIGXFSZ
 signal.

Hello Thiago,

Quoted 6 lines · Thiago Jung Bauermann

It would have been obvious that these limits are in bytes, except that "ulimit -a" in at least bash, dash and zsh says that they're in blocks. This confused me, so I had to check the kernel source code.

My understanding is that they are indeed in bytes, so mention this information in the man page.

Thanks. That was a silly deficiency on the man page. Patch applied.

I also fixed a similar problem with RLIMIT_DATA.

Quoted 10 lines · Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)

Hello Thiago,

Quoted 6 lines · Thiago Jung Bauermann

It would have been obvious that these limits are in bytes, except that "ulimit -a" in at least bash, dash and zsh says that they're in blocks. This confused me, so I had to check the kernel source code.

My understanding is that they are indeed in bytes, so mention this information in the man page.

Quoted 1 line

Thanks. That was a silly deficiency on the man page. Patch applied.

Thanks!

Quoted 1 line

I also fixed a similar problem with RLIMIT_DATA.

I didn't occur to me to check the other resources. Thanks for doing that.