linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] autofs: fix the wrong usage of the deprecated task_pgrp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:24:47 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs: fix the wrong usage of the deprecated
	task_pgrp_nr()

Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> On 01/19, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> > > On 01/19, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 13:42 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before the patch
> > > > >
> > > > > 	sbi->oz_pgrp != task_pgrp(automount)
> > > > >
> > > > > After the patch
> > > > >
> > > > > 	sbi->oz_pgrp == task_pgrp(automount)
> > > > >
> > > > > And please note that these "!="/"==" apply to any namespace. I mean,
> > > > > when we call autofs_oz_mode() it does not matter in which namespace
> > > > > autofs_oz_mode() is executed, we compare "struct pid*", not pid_t.
> > > >
> > > > I think your saying that the option pgrp= is broken and should be
> > > > deprecated
> > >
> > > No, no, sorry if I confused you.
> > > 
> > > If the "pgrp=" option was specified, the patch has no effect, and the
> > > code is correct with or without the patch.
> >
> > But so there does still need to be a patch modifying parse_options()
> > to return an error if pgrp= was not specified, right?
> 
> Why? In that case we should use the caller's pgrp. This is what the
> current tries to do, why should the patch change this behaviour?

Well, because Ian said that not specifying it is supposed to
be an error :)  I didn't quite understand why, so am fishing
for more info...

-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/