> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> we use that argument to pass the
> >> process requesting the rlimit change
> > 
> > can it be different from curproc?
> 
> no. that's what the first version of the fix, as you can see.
> 
> however, keep in mind that the context may be forwarded to a userland
> daemon or a different machine on the network for decision, so I don't
> think we can rely on curproc/curlwp here...

who decided to forward it can save the curproc by itself.

YAMAMOTO Takashi