Comment 26 for bug 1677578
Revision history for this message
| Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer) wrote | #26 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
9199653
demo site
(Get the code!)
Just when I wanted to report to PHP I found [1] which also led me to [2].
With that I understood that ImageMagick does not follow the php limit being a plugin.
Instead it has its own structure of Limits.
That made me check the default limit that are in place
php7.0 -r 'echo Imagick:
7756.0078125
So 8G is the limit, ok I see we are below that with "just" 5G.
If I want to limit Imagick to something more Sane, lets say 1G I can uncomment examples in /etc/ImageMagic
<policy domain="resource" name="memory" value="1GiB"/>
<policy domain="resource" name="map" value="1GiB"/>
BTW - even with the limit applied the functionality did still work.
So I was turning that new knowledge back to our webserver example.
I had to remember that I have to restart it so that php-cgi picks up the new config, but not it stays inside lower limits just fine.
The newer Release like Zesty comes with much safer defaults:
<policy domain="resource" name="memory" value="256MiB"/>
<policy domain="resource" name="map" value="512MiB"/>
<policy domain="resource" name="width" value="16KP"/>
<policy domain="resource" name="height" value="16KP"/>
<policy domain="resource" name="area" value="128MB"/>
<policy domain="resource" name="disk" value="1GiB"/>
While Xenial still has none in the XML which makes them the default to the high values we have seen.
Unfortunately this is next to impossible to SRU [3] back as some environments might rely on the bigger limits and regress by doing so.
That said I think we have it complete now:
1. understood the issue
2. adressed in the latest release (saner/lower defaults)
3. not SRUable to older releases
I hope that helps you to make your setup work as you expect it.
You were were active on your report and I want to thank you once more - officially this is not "invalid" as it is not a "bug" in the common sense. If you think it is please re-set to new and discuss.
I wonder if there is a good place to announce this as potential DOS to let people check their configuration. I'll ping a few people and ask them.
[1]: https:/
[2]: http://
[3]: https:/