linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 2/3] cgroup: simplify init

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <6599ad830804020326o7947e3e5k25249e6b1c00e6b5@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 03:26:24 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Li Zefan" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/3] cgroup: simplify init_subsys()

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>  -
>  -       /* If this subsystem requested that it be notified with fork
>  -        * events, we should send it one now for every process in the
>  -        * system */
>  -       if (ss->fork) {
>  -               struct task_struct *g, *p;
>  -
>  -               read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  -               do_each_thread(g, p) {
>  -                       ss->fork(ss, p);
>  -               } while_each_thread(g, p);
>  -               read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>  -       }

Should we maybe call ss->fork(ss, &init_task) ? Or just document that
ss->fork() explicitly doesn't get called for init.

Maybe also add some BUG()s to confirm that no other tasks have in fact
been forked by this point?

Paul
--
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/