Comment # 16 on bug 1087925 from Cristian Rodr�guez

(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #15)
> (In reply to Giacomo Comes from comment #14)
> > Yes, that was the issue. Rising the soft nofile limit to 2048 made sddm work
> > again. (the threshold was at about 1310).
> > 
> > The question remains about why it is necessary (at least for me) to increase
> > such limit.
> 
> It appears to me like the NIS user enumeration (or some other part) leaks
> sockets:
> 
> socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP) = 24
> [...]  (never closed)
> socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP) = 1000
> 
> Reassigning to tirpc bugowner and raising severity to major, as one leaked
> fd per user (?) can really cause issues.

huh..it also does not set SOCK_CLOEXEC..did you identified which library has
this behaviour ?