[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070322132853.GA22933@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:28:53 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>, sukadev@...ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Replace pid_t in autofs with struct pid reference
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > So is the pid used for anything other than debugging?
> >
> > In any case, here is a replacement patch which sends the pid number
> > in the pid_namespace of the process which did the autofs4 mount.
> >
> > Still not sure whether that is actually what makes sense...
> >
> > From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] autofs: prevent pid wraparound in waitqs
> >
> > Instead of storing pid numbers for waitqs, store references
> > to struct pids. Also store a reference to the mounter's pid
> > namespace in the autofs4 sb info so that pid numbers for
> > mount miss and expiry msgs can send the pid# in the mounter's
> > pidns.
>
> Hmm. Not quite what I would have expected but given that
> we are sending data over a pipe that sounds reasonable.
>
> If it wasn't a pipe we would really want to do this in
> the context of the process receiving the message, but since
> a pipe can receive a message, and then be passed to another
> process we clearly can't know the pid namespace of the
> process receiving the message.
>
> Therefore just caching the pid namespace either on pipe
> open or on mount makes sense. pipe open might be better.
Right, but the pipe is always opened on mount I think. (at
autofs4_fill_super)
> Serge we really need to introduce __pid_nr in a separate
> patch.
Agreed.
> And we really seem to be confusing Ian.
>
> Plus we have some pid namespace ref counting issues we need
> to handle carefully.
>
> Let's stop working on autofs4 for a bit, fix the pid namespace
> infrastructure so there is enough of it to handle autofs4 and
> then come back.
Agreed. I just wasn't comfortable stopping until I felt we knew how
autofs4 was going to be addressed. I think we know now, plus we've
verified another definite need for the __pid_nr(pidns, pid) helper.
> Either that or take autofs4 in two passes. Pass one we do what
> we can with the current infrastructure. Pass two after we fix up
> the infrastructure including introducing __pid_nr we come back
> and update autofs4 to handle multiple pid namespaces properly.
Nah, let's hold off, and I'll sit on a patch to send out once rest of
the infrastructure goes in.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists