At present the kernel doesn't honour an attempt to set RLIMIT_CPU to zero
seconds.  But the spec says it should, and that's what 2.4.x does.
Fixing this for real would involve some complexity (such as adding a new
it-has-been-set flag to the task_struct, and testing that everwhere, instead
of overloading the value of it_prof_expires).
Given that a 2.4 kernel won't actually send the signal until one second has
expired anyway, let's just handle this case by treating the caller's
zero-seconds as one second.
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
 
        it_prof_secs = cputime_to_secs(current->signal->it_prof_expires);
        if (it_prof_secs == 0 || new_rlim.rlim_cur <= it_prof_secs) {
-               cputime_t cputime = secs_to_cputime(new_rlim.rlim_cur);
+               unsigned long rlim_cur = new_rlim.rlim_cur;
+               cputime_t cputime;
 
+               if (rlim_cur == 0) {
+                       /*
+                        * The caller is asking for an immediate RLIMIT_CPU
+                        * expiry.  But we use the zero value to mean "it was
+                        * never set".  So let's cheat and make it one second
+                        * instead
+                        */
+                       rlim_cur = 1;
+               }
+               cputime = secs_to_cputime(rlim_cur);
                read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
                spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
                set_process_cpu_timer(current, CPUCLOCK_PROF, &cputime, NULL);